Karnataka High Court
M P Krishnaraju vs S.V.Girish on 25 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12387
CRL.RP No. 1401 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1401 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
M.P KRISHNARAJU
S/O LATE PUTTARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RAVI PRESS, MAHADEVPET
MADIKERI-571 201
KODAGU DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY MR. B.S BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
S.V.GIRISH
S/O S .VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
SHIVAPURA VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by
MAYAGAIAH KODLIPET HOBLI,
VINUTHA SOMWARPET TALUK,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KODAGU DIST-571 213
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY MR. C.P. PUTTARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
CONVICTION/SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.518/2008 DATED
24.03.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
SOMWARPET AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF I ADDL.
DIST. AND S.J., KODAGU, MADIKERI IN CRL.A.NO.39/2015
DATED 26.08.2016.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12387
CRL.RP No. 1401 of 2016
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This criminal revision petition is directed against the
judgment passed in Crl.A.No.39/2015 dated 26.08.2016 by the
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri
(hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Sessions Judge'),
whereby the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment
passed in C.C.No.518/2008 dated 24.03.2015 by the Principal
Civil Judge & JMFC, Somwarpet (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Trial Court') and modified the sentence by imposing a fine
amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the petitioner instead of
Rs.1,90,000/- imposed by the Trial Court.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that:
The revision petitioner/accused borrowed a hand loan of
Rs.95,000/- from the respondent/complainant on 10.04.2007
for his family's legal necessities and agreed to repay the same
within five months. On failing to repay the same, he issued a
cheque i.e., Ex.P1 dated 10.09.2007 for Rs.95,000/-. On his
instructions, the complainant, i.e., the respondent, presented
NC: 2025:KHC:12387
the said cheque for encashment. However, the same was
dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient.'
Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused
to repay the cheque amount. However, the accused failed to
repay the same. As such, a private complaint has been filed by
the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the
'NI Act')
3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he
examined himself as PW.1 and additionally examined one more
witness as PW.2 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11.
In rebuttal, the respondent/accused examined himself as DW.1
and no documents got marked on behalf of him.
4. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence
placed before the Trial Court, the learned Trial Court passed the
judgment by convicting the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the NI Act by imposing a fine amount of
Rs.1,90,000/- and in default of payment of fine, directed him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The said
judgment was challenged by the accused before the learned
NC: 2025:KHC:12387
Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.39/2015. The learned Sessions
Judge after re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record,
confirmed the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court by
modifying the fine amount from Rs.1,90,000/- to Rs.1,40,000/-
and directed that if the accused failed to repay the same, he
shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Challenge to
the same is lis before this Court.
5. I have heard Sri. B.S.Basavaraju, the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. C.P.Puttaraja,
learned counsel for the respondent.
6. During the course of arguments, the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner fairly submits that the
cheque amount was Rs.95,000/- and as per the interim order
passed by this Court in the instant case, the revision petitioner
had deposited a sum of Rs.70,000/- before the Trial Court. He
would also submit that by considering this aspect the sentence
imposed by the Sessions Court be reduced to the cheque
amount since the revision petitioner intends to resolve the
dispute. The learned counsel for the respondent by conceding
with the submission prays to impose reasonable fine amount.
NC: 2025:KHC:12387
7. By relying on the counsels' submissions on record, I
am of the considered view that the fine amount imposed by the
Sessions Court be modified to the extent that the appellant
shall pay fine amount of Rs.1,20,000/- instead of Rs.1,40,000/-
to the respondent. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Revision petition is
allowed-in-part;
ii) The judgment of conviction dated
24.03.2015 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge
and JMFC, Somwarpet in C.C.No.518/2008,
which was confirmed and modified by the I
Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu,
Madikeri in Crl.A.No.39/2015 is hereby
modified.
iii) The revision petitioner/accused is directed
to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/- to the
respondent within four weeks from the date
of receipt of the certified copy of this order
and in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of six months.
iv) If the fine amount is deposited, the entire
fine amount shall be paid as compensation
NC: 2025:KHC:12387
to the complainant/respondent under
Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.
v) The said fine amount includes the amount,
if any, deposited by the revision petitioner
before the Trial Court.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
KTY
