Karnataka High Court
Shri Hanumant S/O Krishna Patil vs Shri S M Associations R/P By Its ... on 16 January, 2025
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:650
CRL.RP No. 100006 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100006 OF 2022
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHRI HANUMANT S/O. KRISHNA PATIL,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. NEAR KLE CANCER HOSPITAL,
ONE CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR , ASHOK NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590003.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI S.M.ASSOCIATIONS
R/P BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SHRI BSALINGAPPA B.BANDAI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. VAIBHAV NAGAR, NEAR SHANTESH MOTORS,
BELAGAVI-590001.
Digitally
signed by
MANJANNA E
... RESPONDENT
MANJANNA
E Date:
2025.01.21
14:31:53
(BY SRI MADANGOUDA N.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
+0530
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W
401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE
REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.290/2019 DATED ON 30.11.2021 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELAGAVI AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CC
NO.461/2018 DATED 24.07.2019 PASSED BY THE VIII JMFC
BELAGAVI, OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT, AND ALLOW
THE REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:650
CRL.RP No. 100006 of 2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI)
Challenging judgment dated 30.11.2021 passed by XI
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.Appeal
no.290/2019 and judgment and order dated 24.07.2019 passed
by VIII JMFC, Belagavi in CC.no.461/2018, this revision petition
is filed.
2. Sri Mahantesh S.Hiremath, learned counsel for
petitioner submitted that respondent had filed private
complaint in CC.no.461/2018 before VIII JMFC Court, Belagavi
alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N.I. Act' for short) by
petitioner herein. In complaint it was stated that complainant
was in business of supplying building materials and from
December, 2017 onwards, petitioner purchased building
materials worth a total of Rs.3,51,612/- and made part
payment of Rs.1,50,000/- on 13th December, 2017. At that
time, he had agreed to clear balance amount within six months.
When he failed and complainant approached him, petitioner
had issued two cheques bearing no.40821 and 40822 both
dated 04.04.2018 drawn on Canara Bank, Khade Bazaar,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:650
Belgaum for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each. When cheques were
presented for collection on 24.04.2018, respondent received
intimation on same day about their dishonor on ground of
insufficient funds. Within 15 days thereafter i.e. on 09.15.2018,
complainant got issued legal notice calling upon petitioner to
pay cheque amount, however, notices returned unclaimed on
17.05.2018. As there was no repayment, complaint was filed
on 02.06.2018.
3. Trial Judge framed following points for
consideration:
" ೕಲ ಂಡ ಸಂಗ ಗ ಂದ ಳಕಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳು ನನ ಪ ಗಣ
ಬಂ ರುತ .
(i). ಆ ೂೕ"ತನು #ಾನೂ%ಾತ&ಕ'ಾ( )ಾವ ಸ+ೕ#ಾದ ಹಣ#ಾ (
¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ %ಾಂಕ : 04.04.2018 ರಂದು ತ-ಾ ರೂ.
1,00,000/- ಗ .ಕು ಗಳ ಸಂ/0 : 040821 ಮತು
040822 %ಾ2ಾ 3ಾ0ಂ4, ಖ6 ಬ7ಾರ, +ಳ8ಾ9ಯ ಎರಡು
.ಕ ಗಳನು <ೕ=ದು>, ಸದ .ಕ ಗಳನು ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ಯು ತನ
3ಾ0ಂ?ನ@A ನಗ ೕಕರಣ#ಾ ( Bಾಜರುಪ=DEಾಗ, ತ-ಾ ಎರಡು
.ಕು ಗಳು %ಾಂಕ 24.04.2018 ರಂದು ಆ ೂೕ"ಯ FಾGಯ@A
' ಾಕಷು ಹಣ ಇರುವ ಲ ' ಎಂಬ ಎರಡು HಂಬರಹIೂಂ
ಅ%ಾಧರಣ ೂಂ=ದು>, ಈ ಬ K %ಾಂಕ 09.05.2018 ರಂದು
¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ ಆ ೂೕ" @Lತ ೂೕMಸನು <ೕ=, ಎರಡು
.ಕು ಗಳ@A ಒಳ ೂಂ=ರುವ ಹಣವನು ೂೕMಸು 7ಾ Oಾದ
NC: 2025:KHC-D:650
15 ನಗಳ@A )ಾವ ಸುವಂG Dದ>ರೂ, ಆ ೂೕ"ಯು
.ಕು ಗಳ ಹಣವನು ೕರುವ PಾಡIೕ ಇರುವRದ ಂದ
ªÀUÁðವSಯ @Lತ ಪತTಗಳ ಅU<ಯಮ ಕಲಂ 138 ರ
ಅ=ಯ@A ಆ ೂೕ"ಯು ²PÁëºÀð'ಾದ ಅಪ2ಾಧ Pಾ=ರುVಾ
ಎಂಬುದನು ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ಯು ರುಜು'ಾತು ಪ=ಸುವ ?
(ii). Pಾಡುವ ಆIೕಶ ಏನು ?"
4. Trial Judge answered point no.1 in affirmative and
point no.2 by convicting petitioner for offence punishable under
Section 138 of N.I. Act and ordering payment of fine amount of
Rs.2,30,000/- and in case of failure to pay fine amount,
petitioner was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year.
5. It was submitted judgment passed by trial Court
was contrary to law, without taking note of defences raised by
petitioner that there were no transactions with complainant and
complainant had failed to produce accounts statement.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed Crl.Appeal no.290/2019 wherein
following points were framed for consideration:
"1) Whether the appellant shows that the finding of
the trial court is perverse, capricious and illegal
requiring interference in the hands of this court?
NC: 2025:KHC-D:650
2) What order?"
6. Without proper appreciation of contentions,
Appellate Judge proceeded to dismiss appeal. Aggrieved to this,
revision petition was filed.
7. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan reported in 2010 (11) SCC 441
had held it was not necessary for accused to enter into witness
box and lead evidence to rebut presumption available under
Section 139 of N.I. Act and that accused would be entitled to
rebut presumption based on material on record.
8. It was further submitted, when specific defence of
petitioner was disputing transaction, mere production of
invoices without account statement would be sufficient to rebut
presumption. It was further submitted, there were material
alterations and Exs.P1 and P2 appeared to have been signed in
different inks raising bonafide doubt. Such being case, both
Courts erred in convicting petitioner and holding him liable to
pay fine amount. It was further submitted, since complaint was
filed within 15 days from date of notice, there was violation of
Section 138 of N.I. Act. Therefore, impugned judgments of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:650
conviction as well as orders of sentence were liable to be set-
aside. On above grounds, sought for allowing petition.
9. On other hand, Sri Madangouda N.Patil, learned
counsel for respondent opposed petition. It was submitted,
contrary to contentions denying transaction, during course of
cross-examination, suggestions made and admissions elicited
were to effect that complainant had agreed to return cheques
on payment of amount into account, therefore, cheques were
given as security and not towards discharge of debt. Thus,
issuance of cheques were admitted and production of invoices
along with GST returns would suffice. Hence, there was no
scope for interference.
10. Heard learned counsel and perused record.
11. This revision petition is under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of Cr.P.C. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and
another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, scope of interference
against concurrent findings is held to be extremely limited and
normally only on questions of law and not findings of fact.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:650
12. While passing impugned judgment, both Courts
have taken note of defence set up by petitioner that issuance of
cheques were as security and not towards discharge of legally
enforceable debt. Both Courts have taken note of same as
admission about due execution and issuance of cheques
attracting presumption.
13. Insofar as contention that signatures on Ex.P.1 and
Ex.P.2 were in different inks, have been duly examined and not
accepted on ground that mere change in ink would not raise
doubt. And as petitioner had suggested that he had only
transacted with complainant for purchase of 8 mm sheets
whereas, he was supplied with 6 mm sheets, would admit
transaction between complainant and petitioner.
14. In light of above, since complainant produced
invoices for supply of material to petitioner, production of
account statement would not be necessary since account
statement would be only an abstract of individual invoices.
Moreover complainant had produced Form GSTR-3B (tax
return), wherein transactions in Ex.P.11 series between parties
are referred. Tax return would also be a document maintained
NC: 2025:KHC-D:650
in normal course of business and Tax invoices and GST returns
cannot be stated to be either insufficient or unacceptable
evidence. Therefore finding of trial Court availing presumption
in favour of cheques would not suffer from perversity, providing
scope for interference.
15. Insofar as specific contention that complaint was
filed before expiry of 15 days period from date of receipt of
Exs.P.1 and 2-cheques, it is seen Exs.P.8 and 9, legal notices
were issued to petitioner at two different addresses. While
Ex.P.8 returned with postal share as refused, Ex.P.9 returned
unclaimed. Date of return is 17.05.2018 and complaint was
registered on 02.06.2018 and cognizance taken on same day.
16. Though contention of learned counsel for petitioner
about 15 days period for making payment after from date of
receipt of legal notice would be mandatory, in view of decision
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs.
Savitri Pandey and another reported in 2014 (10) SCC 713
reiterated in Gajanand Burange Vs. Laxmi Chand Goyal,
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1711. In instant case, date
NC: 2025:KHC-D:650
of filing of complaint i.e., 02.06.2018 would be 17th day.
Therefore even said contention would not avail to petitioner.
17. In view of above, I do not find any justifiable
grounds to interfere. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
RH/EM
CT:PA
