Karnataka High Court
Sri Mariyappa Alias M.B.Marigowda vs K M Vishwanath on 24 June, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22031
CRL.RP No. 1195 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 1195 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI MARIYAPPA ALIAS
M.B.MARIGOWDA
S/O LATE BOREGOWDA
CONTRACTOR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT No.604/2
VINAYAKA BADAVANE
K.R.NAGAR TOWN
MYSURU - 571 602
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VASUDEV G., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
K M VISHWANATH
Digitally signed by S/O M.S.MAHADEVAPPA,
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/AT BASAVESHWARA BLOCK,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA K.R.NAGAR TOWN,
MYSURU - 571 602
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B M AKANDESWARA.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ
WITH SECTION 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2016 PASSED BY THE V
ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN
CRL.A.NO.197/2015 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22031
CRL.RP No. 1195 of 2016
HC-KAR
CONVICTION DATED 18.09.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R.NAGAR IN C.C.NO.1028/2013 AND
ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF
N.I. ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the
judgment dated 27.07.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.197/2015
by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru
wherein the judgment of conviction passed in
C.C.No.1028/2013 dated 18.09.2015 by the Principal Civil
and Sessions Judge and JMFC, K.R. Nagar, convicting the
petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to
as "N.I Act" for brevity) has been affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The case of the respondent -complainant was
that the petitioner -accused has borrowed a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) on
NC: 2025:KHC:22031
HC-KAR
10.11.2012 agreeing to repay the same within a period of
three months. In order to repay the said amount
borrowed, the petitioner -accused has issued a post-dated
cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand
only) bearing No.532851 dated 20.02.2013 drawn on
Karnataka Bank Ltd., K.R.Nagar in favour of the
respondent -complainant. The said cheque presented for
encashment on 22.02.2013 and said cheque came to be
dishonoured for reason "funds insufficient". The
respondent -complainant got issued legal notice dated
26.02.2013 calling upon the petitioner -accused to pay the
cheque amount within 15 days. The said notice has been
returned with postal shara "not claimed". As the petitioner
-accused has not paid the cheque amount, the respondent
-complainant has initiated the proceedings against the
petitioner -accused for offence punishable under Section
138 of the N.I Act.
4. The respondent -accused has been examined
as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 4. The
NC: 2025:KHC:22031
HC-KAR
petitioner -accused did not choose to cross examine
P.W.1. The statement of accused has been recorded
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has not lead
any defence evidence. The trial Court after hearing
arguments on both side has convicted the petitioner -
accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the
N.I Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees
One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) and in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two years. The
judgment of conviction has been challenged by the
petitioner -accused before the Sessions Court in
Crl.A.No.197/2015. The said appeal came to be dismissed
on merits. The said judgment is challenged in this Criminal
Revision Petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the petitioner -accused has not been given
opportunity to cross examine P.W.1.
6. Having heard learned counsel this Court has
perused impugned judgments and trial Court records.
NC: 2025:KHC:22031
HC-KAR
7. On perusal of order sheet of the trial Court,
evidence of P.W.1 has been recorded on 25.02.2015 and
case has been adjourned to 06.04.2015 for cross
examination of P.W.1. Subsequently, the case came to be
adjourned 26.05.2015, 20.06.2015 and 24.07.2015 for
cross examination of P.W.1. Inspite of granting sufficient
opportunities, the petitioner -accused has not choosen to
cross examine P.W.1. Therefore, considering the said
aspect, it cannot be said that the petitioner -accused has
not been given sufficient opportunity for cross examination
of P.W.1.
8. In the appeal, when it was pending, the
compromise petition has been filed under Section 147 of
the N.I Act and it has been jointly signed by the petitioner
-accused and the respondent. As per said compromise
petition, the matter has been settled for Rs.1,50,000/-
(rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) and amount of
deposit made by the petitioner -accused before the trial
Court in sum of Rs.75,000/- (rupees Seventy Five
NC: 2025:KHC:22031
HC-KAR
Thousand only) has to be withdrawn by the respondent
and remaining balance of Rs.75,000/-(rupees Seventy Five
Thousand only) has to be paid by the petitioner -accused
on or before 30.06.2016. The said compromise petition
has been filed on 21.03.2016. Thereafter, the Appellate
Court has granted time to the petitioner -accused for
making payment of balance amount as agreed in the
compromise petition. On 30.06.2016, the petitioner -
accused has not complied terms and conditions of
compromise petition by paying balance amount of
Rs.75,000/- and hence, the Appellate Court has proceeded
to hear arguments on both side and passed the impugned
judgment. Even though, the petitioner -accused has
settled the matter with the respondent -complainant has
not complied terms and conditions of compromise petition
which requires payment of balance amount of Rs.75,000/-
on or before 30.06.2016. Nine years have been elapsed
from the said date, even till date the petitioner has not
paid the said amount. As there is no cross examination of
NC: 2025:KHC:22031
HC-KAR
P.W.1, the trial Court has rightly drawn presumption under
Section 139 of the N.I Act and rightly convicted the
petitioner -accused for offence punishable under Section
138 of the N.I Act. The Appellate Court re-appreciating
evidence on record and also considering that the petitioner
-accused has not complied terms and conditions of
compromise petition has dismissed the appeal and
affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial
Court. There are no grounds for allowing this Criminal
Revision Petition.
9. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP
