Karnataka High Court
Sri.Benki Chidananda vs State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 811 OF 2021
(397(CR.PC) / 438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI. BENKI CHIDANANDA,
S/O BENKI THIPPESWAMY,
AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT #2353,
SAMPIGE ROAD, J-BLOCK,
KUVEMPUNAGAR,
MYSURU - 570 023.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. SHARASS CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIDYARANYAPURAM P S
2. K. RAGHU
S/O KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT: NO.1875, AKBAR ROAD,
LASHKAR MOHALLA,
MYSORE - 570 007.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAM.A, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. RAJESWARI M, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29.06.2021
IN CRL.A.NO.30/2020 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU AND JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 20.01.2020 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSURU IN
C.C.NO.8071/2016 AND BE PLEASED TO PASS THE ORDER OF
-2-
ACQUITTAL AND ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER OF THE
CHARGE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 12.03.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS
PRONOUNCED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CAV ORDER
In this petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C petitioner who is accused No.1 has challenged his
conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the
offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 of IPC
which came to be confirmed by the Sessions Court by
dismissing the appeal filed by him.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.
3. Respondent No.2 - Defacto complainant K
Raghu filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C,
alleging that on 07.05.2012, accused No.1 borrowed hand
loan of ₹20,000/- with a promise to repay the same within
one month. He issued a cheque dated 07.06.2012 towards
repayment of the same. When complainant present it for
-3-
encashment, it was returned with endorsement "there is
no sufficient funds" in the account and that the signature
in the cheque does not tally with the specimen signature of
account holder. In this regard, complainant made several
request to the accused No.1 to pay the amount.
Ultimately, on 05.01.2016, when he went to the house of
accused No.1 to make demand, all the accused persons
abused him in filthy language and gave threat to him and
accused No.1 said that with the intention of cheating him,
he has issued the cheque belonging to his wife by affixing
his signature and since the validity period of the cheque
has elapsed, the complainant was left without remedy. He
was also manhandled and removed from the house.
Though he approached Vidyaranyapuram police station to
file complaint but it was not accepted. Police Commissioner
also failed to take action upon the complaint. Threfore,
without any alternative, he is forced to file the private
complaint.
4. The trial Court referred this complaint to the
jurisdictional police for investigation. The concerned police
-4-
after conducting detailed investigation filed charge sheet
against accused Nos.1 to 3.
5. Accused persons contested the case, by pleading
not guilty to the charges framed by the trial Court.
6. In order to prove the allegations against
accused, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of
PWs-1 to 7 and Exs.P1 to 14.
7. During the course of statement under Section
313, of Cr.P.C, accused have denied the incriminating
evidence led by the prosecution.
8. On behalf of accused persons, accused No.2 is
examined as DW1 and Ex.D1 is marked.
9. The trial Court the acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3
for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 504 and
506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. It convicted accused No.1 for
the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 471
of IPC and sentenced him as detailed in the order.
-5-
10. Aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 filed
Criminal Appeal No.30/2020 before the Sessions Court. It
came to be dismissed and thereby confirming the
conviction and sentence of accused No.1.
11. Challenging both Judgments and orders of the
trial Court as well as the Sessions Court, accused No.1 is
before this Court contending that they are arbitrary,
capricious and opposed to the principles of law. While
considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has
brushed aside, the inconsistencies, contradictions and
omissions. The conviction of accused No.1 is against the
weight of the evidence on record. The trial Court has relied
upon the sole testimony of PW1 and drawn a conclusion
that accused No.1 has fraudulently or dishonestly induced
defacto complainant to pay him a sum of ₹20,000/- and
thereby guilty of the offences punishable under Sections
467 and 471 of IPC.
12. Ex.P3 is addressed to State bank of India and
as admitted by PW1 only cheque was returned to him. In
Ex.P3 the cheque was returned for want of sufficient funds
-6-
and manual insertion is made as to the second reason for
dishonour of cheque as 'drawer signature differ', with a
different rubber stamp affixed recently. There is no
dishonest inducement by accused No.1, and therefore the
ingredients of Sections 420, 467 and 471 are not
attracted. Though the trial Court rightly held that the
prosecution has failed to prove the incident dated
05.01.2016 and acquitted Nos.1 to 3 for the offences
punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and
accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section
406 of IPC, it committed grave error in holding that
accused No.1 is guilty of offence punishable under Sections
420, 467 and 471 of IPC. Exs.P8 to 10 are not admissible,
since originals are not produced. The Courts below have
erred in holding that accused failed to establish that the
amount in question on which Ex.P2 cheque was drawn is a
joint account. DW1 has produced ExD1-photo copy of the
joint account opening form application to add the name of
accused No.1 to the account to make it jointly operable.
Viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment and order
-7-
of the trial Court and Sessions Court are not sustainable
and hence the petition.
13. On the other hand, learned HCGP representing
the State and learned counsel representing respondent
No.2/De facto complainant supported the judgment and
order impugned. They would submit that the account on
which Ex.P2 cheque is drawn is the individual account
standing in the name of accused No.2. In order to cheat
the complainant, accused No.1 has issued the cheque
drawn on the said account by a affixing his signature.
When it was presented for encashment, it was returned
dishonoured on the ground that there are no sufficient
funds in the account as well as the signature of the drawer
differ from the specimen signature.
14. On 05.01.2016, when complainant went to the
house of accused persons, he was abused and manhandled
by accused Nos. 1 to 3. Though the trial Court as well as
the Sessions Court held that the incident dated 05.01.2016
is not proved, they have rightly come to the conclusion
that accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable
-8-
under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC. At the trial,
accused have taken a defence that the account in question
was a joint account and as such accused No.1 was
authorized to operate the same and therefore no offence is
committed by accused No.1. However, accused No.1 has
failed to prove that it was a joint account operable by
accused Nos.1 and 2. The findings given by the court
below are based on the evidence placed on record and
there is no perversity. No justifiable grounds are made out
to interfere with the concurrent findings of the court below
and prayed to dismiss the petition also.
15. Heard arguments and produced the record.
16. The undisputed facts are that Ex.P2 cheque is
drawn on account No.10662011000539. However, it is
signed by accused No.1, affixing his signature. The trial
Court as well as the First Appellate Court have consistently
held that prosecution has proved that accused No.1 issued
the cheque at Ex.P2 towards repayment of loan of
₹20,000/- received by him and on presentation it was
dishonoured as the signature differ from the specimen
-9-
signature of the drawer and also for insufficient funds.
ExP3 is the endorsement issued by drawer bank to the
State Bank of Mysuru Mandi Mohalla through which
complainant presented it for encashment. In turn, the
State bank of Mysuru has issued the same to the
complainant by affixing its seal.
17. So far as insertion of reason No.2 in hand
writing that the drawers signature differ is concerned, it
appears since usually cheques are dishonoured for want of
sufficient funds, the bank is having the format with the
said condition. When the cheque was also dishonoured on
the ground, that drawers signature differ, the said reason
is added in handwriting. PW3 Pankaj Kumar Jha is the
Chief Manager of drawer bank. During the course of
evidence, he has clearly deposed that ExP2 cheque was
dishonoured for want of sufficient funds as well as drawers
signature differs. Except suggesting that he has not given
any statement before the investigating officer, his evidence
is not challenged by the accused.
- 10 -
18. At the trial, the accused have tried to establish
that the account on which Ex.P2 cheque is drawn is a joint
account of accused Nos.1 and 2 and therefore accused
No.1 was also authorized to sign it and accordingly he has
issued the said cheque and as such, no offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC are
committed by accused No.1. However, the evidence of
PW3 Pankaj Kumar Jha clearly proved that the said
account was opened in the individual name of accused
No.2 on 07.06.2006 and cheque No.893641 (Ex.P2) was
issued to the said account. He has produced the attested
copies of account opening form, telephone bill, and PAN
card at Ex.P8 to 10. ExP8 clearly state that it was an
application filed by accused No.2 for opening an account in
her individual name. As already noted, accused have not at
all challenge the testimony of PW3. No suggestions are
made to him that it was an account opened in the joint
name of accused Nos.1 and 2 or that subsequently any
requisition was given, to the bank to convert it a joint
account.
- 11 -
19. In order to prove that the account in question
was a joint account of accused Nos.1 and 2, the accused
have relied upon the testimony of DW-1 (accused No.2).
She has deposed that she opened the account in question
in her individual name during 2006. However, since her
husband was working in the same Branch, they were
directed to make it a joint account and therefore during
March 2008, she gave an application to make it a joint
account. However, accused have not produced any
document prove that during 2008, the said account was
converted into a joint account. The accused have relied
upon, Ex.D1, which is a application given on 26.03.2019 to
add the name of accused No.2 to the pension account of
accused No.1. It has nothing to do with the account on
which Ex.P2 cheque was drawn. Thus, the accused have
failed to establish Account No.10662011000539 on which
Ex.P2 cheque was drawn was a joint account of accused
Nos.1 and 2, and that he was authorized to sign the same.
Exs.P8 to 10 are the attested copies of account opening
form given by the accused No.2, and the documents
produced along with it in proof of her address which are
- 12 -
undisputed documents and in fact are not disputed during
the cross examination of PW3. Such being the case it is not
open to the accused to dispute the same in the present
petition.
20. The trial Court as well as the Sessions Court on
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed
on record have rightly held that the allegations against
accused No.1 proved for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC. The conclusions drawn
and findings arrived at are consistent with the evidence
placed on record. This Court finds no perversity in the
same calling for interference.
21. In the result the petition fails and accordingly
the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition filed by the accused No.1 under
Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C is
dismissed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order
dated 29.06.2021 in Crl.A.No.30/2020
- 13 -
on the file of V Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Mysuru and order dated
20.01.2020 in C.C.No.8071/2016 on the
file of I Addl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM,
Mysuru are confirmed.
(iii) The Registry is directed to send back
trial Court and Sessions Court records
along with copy of this order forthwith.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI)
JUDGE
ASN
