Karnataka High Court
Smt Mangamma vs Sri Muniyappa on 4 March, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9197
CRL.RP No. 1377 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1377 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MANGAMMA
W/O MUNIRAJ @ BHOR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT H.NO.105, TOOBARAHALLI,
RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST,
BANGALORE-560066
AND ALSO AT VAYATAKEL,
MITTEGANAHALLI,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563114.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. MANJULA L., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SRI. MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE LINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT NO.118, CHARITHA CLASSIC APARTMENT,
ATTACHED HOUSE, 1ST MAIN,
NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
TOOBARAHALLI,
RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU-560066.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. THIPPESWAMY T., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9197
CRL.RP No. 1377 of 2021
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED
22.10.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU (CCH-
74) IN CRL. APPEAL NO.25170/2018 BY CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATED 06.09.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LVII ACMM,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.51968/2017.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. This
revision petition is filed against the conviction and
sentence in C.C.No.51968/2017 dated 06.09.2018 for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act, imposing
to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine
amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment
for 3 months and compensation of Rs.12,12,000/- to the
complainant and as against the confirmation order passed
by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.25170/2018 dated
22.10.2021.
NC: 2025:KHC:9197
2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant
before the Trial Court that both the complainant and
accused are friends and known to each other from 20
years and accused approached for hand loan of
Rs.9,00,000/-. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.9,00,000/-
was paid on 10.04.2015 and accused promised to repay
the same within 9 months and did not repay the same and
hence, issued the Cheque dated 24.10.2016 for an amount
of Rs.9,00,000/- and when the same was presented,
endorsement was issued that 'account was closed' and
hence, legal notice was issued and no reply was given and
thereafter complaint was filed and cognizance was taken
and accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did
not plead guilty and hence, complainant got examined
himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. The
accused though examined herself as DW1 and produced
document Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 and defense set out by the
accused before the Trial that she has borrowed the money
from one Gowramma and not from the complainant and
repaid the said amount to the Gowramma and Cheque
NC: 2025:KHC:9197
which was issued to Gowramma was misused and false
complaint is filed. The Trial Court did not accept the
contention of the revision petitioner having considered the
document of Ex.P1 Cheque as well as service of notice and
no reply was given and account statement was also
marked as Ex.P10 and notarized copies are also marked as
Ex.P11 to Ex.P14. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion
that Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 will not comes to the aid of the
petitioner. Being aggrieved by the conviction and
sentence, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.25170/2018. The
First Appellate Court also while re-appreciating the
material available on record, an observation is made in
paragraph No.25 that the said Gowramma was not
examined and ought to have examined to prove the case
of the accused by placing preponderance of probabilities to
show that there was a transaction between the accused
and said Gowramma and the said Cheque was issued to
the accused at the instance of the said Gowramma and
also taken note of document Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 as well as
the case of the complainant in paragraph Nos.27 and 28
NC: 2025:KHC:9197
comes to the conclusion that what prevents the accused to
examine the said Gowramma in support of her defense,
nothing is placed before the Court to establish the said
contention and accepted the finding of the Trial Court and
dismissed the appeal.
3. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the
present revision petition is filed before this Court. The
main contention of the counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner that the transaction is between accused and also
the complainant. The defense of the accused has not been
accepted. The counsel also would contend that in terms of
Ex.P8, the respondent clearly states that respondent
received the retirement benefit of Rs.3,59,138/- only and
having money of Rs.9,00,000/- to pay the same no such
material is placed before the Court. It is also contended
that during his cross-examination, the complainant
produced the document of Ex.P10 which clearly shows that
an amount of Rs.45,723/- is found and also the
complainant has no capacity to pay the amount of
Rs.9,00,000/- to the accused. The Trial Court also
NC: 2025:KHC:9197
committed an error in coming to the conclusion of
calculation of interest for a sum of Rs.3,10,500/- and
direct him to pay the amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. The very
approach of the Trial Court is erroneous and First
Appellate Court also committed an error in accepting the
reasons of the Trial Court and also submits that appellant
bank transaction was closed in the year 2010 itself and
only undue influence and coercion of the complainant and
Gowramma, the accused issued the Cheque for a security
to the amount received by the Gowramma from the
complainant and these are the materials which have not
been considered.
4. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the
respondent would vehemently contend that in order to
prove the defense that amount was borrowed from
Gowramma no documents are placed before the Trial
Court except taking the defense and even not examined
the said Gowramma and the same has been discussed in
Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court and document
Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 placed before the Trial Court not helpful
NC: 2025:KHC:9197
to the accused and not committed any error in
appreciating the same. Having heard the revision
petitioner's counsel and also the counsel appearing for the
respondent and also the grounds which have been urged
in the revision petition and also submission made by the
counsel for revision petitioner and respondent, the point
that would arise for consideration of this Court are:
1) Whether the Trial Court committed an
error in convicting the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of
N.I Act and whether the First Appellate
Court also committed an error in
accepting the reasons of the Trial Court
and whether this Court invoked the
revisional jurisdiction having found any
perversity in the finding of both the
Courts?
2) What Order?
5. Having heard the revision petitioner's counsel
and also the counsel appearing for the respondent, it is
specifically pleaded in the complaint that both of them are
NC: 2025:KHC:9197
having acquaintance with each other from last 20 years
and also specific case of complainant that the accused had
approached the complainant on 10.04.2015 and requested
to give a hand loan of Rs.9,00,000/- and also took time to
repay the same within 9 months and on consistent
demand issued the subject matter of Cheque dated
24.10.2016 and endorsement was issued that 'account
was closed' when the same was presented and no dispute
with regard to the issuance of Cheque is concerned and
only contention was taken by the revision petitioner that
availed the loan from Gowramma and not from this
complainant and in order to substantiate the said
contention, nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW1 that
there was a transaction between Gowramma and this
revision petitioner. Apart from that the said Gowramma
was also not examined before the Trial Court. The counsel
appearing for respondent brought to notice of this Court
earlier also an attempt was made before this Court by
filing Crl.P.No.6873/2020 when the challenge was made
with regard to dismissal of I.A.No.4 filed before the First
NC: 2025:KHC:9197
Appellate Court invoking Section 311 of Cr.P.C r/w Section
391 of Cr.P.C. This Court having observed that opportunity
was given and the same was not utilized and dismissed
the same.
6. Now, the counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner also would contend that if matter is remanded
going to examine the Gowramma and the said contention
cannot be accepted already the prayer made before the
First Appellate Court was turned down and the same is
accepted by this Court dismissing the Crl.P.No.6873/2020
and hence, on that ground also the revision petitioner is
not entitled for interference of this Court. The very
reasoning given by the Trial Court also while awarding an
amount of Rs.12,00,000/- is concerned as against the
Cheque of Rs.9,00,000/- calculated the interest and added
Rs.3,00,000/- in addition to the Cheque amount and when
such reasoned order has been passed and also transaction
is of the year 2015 almost a decade has been elapsed and
when such being the case, I do not find any error
committed by the Trial Court in direct him to pay the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9197
compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- and in the absence of any
perversity in finding of the Trial Court and when the
defense was not proved and only defense was that he has
availed the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from Gowramma and
how the said Cheque has gone to the hands of
complainant also not proved by the revision petitioner and
when such being the case, in the absence of evidence of
Gowramma, question of finding of any perversity does not
arise. The First Appellate Court also in detail discussed in
paragraph Nos.26 and 28 having re-assessed the material
on record for not having examined Gowramma and when
such being the case, I do not find any ground to interfere
with findings to exercise the revisional jurisdiction since
there is no any perversity in the finding of Trial Court and
no plausible evidence is placed before the Trial Court in
order to comes to a conclusion of preponderance of
probability in favour of the petitioner and hence, I answer
the point as 'Negative'.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9197
7. In view of the discussions made above I pass
the following:
ORDER
The Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
