Dismissed

M K Mudalagiri v. a S Rangegowda

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2013CRL.RP/1413/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition challenging a conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Confirming the appellate court's judgment which had reduced the sentence to a fine while retaining compensation liability, the Court held that the lower courts rightly found the facts and no grounds for interference exist.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit balance compensation within two months. Revision Petition dismissed.

M K Mudalagiri Vs a S Rangegowda — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

Dated this the 5^th day of March 2013

¶4

Before

¶5

Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.SURI APPA RAO

¶6

CRL.R.P. No.1413 OF 2010

¶7

Between:

¶8

M.K.Mudalagiri, S/o late Kurithimmaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Working at KMF, R/at No.FG-231, Marketing Assistant, T.N.Pura Road, Siddartha Layout, Mysore. …Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Raghavendra Kattimani, for Sri Shantesh Gureddi, Adv.)

¶10

And:

¶11

A.S.Rangegowda, S/o late K.Subbaiah, Aged about 64 years, R/at House No.132, Vivekananda Block, Teacher Layout, Mysore. …Respondent

¶12

(By Sri R.S.Ravi, Adv.)

¶13

¶14

This Crl. RP. is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the judgment dated 14.9.10 passed by the III Addl.

¶15

¶16

S.J., Mysore in Crl.A.71/09 and order dated 15.4.09 passed by the III JMFC., Mysore in C.C.No.1296/06.

¶17

This Crl. RP. coming on for hearing this day, the Court, made the following:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Revision Petition is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-III, Mysore, in C.C.No.1296/2006, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- to the complainant for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act., which was modified by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Crl.A.No.71/2009, whereby the petitioner was

¶20

sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- to the complainant for the offence under

¶21

Section 138 of N.I.Act.

¶22

- 3 -

¶23

Brief facts of the case are as hereunder:

¶24

In the complaint filed by the respondent it is

¶25

alleged that during first week of September 2003, the accused approached him seeking financial help for the purpose of purchase of residential accommodation. Therefore, the respondent paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused-revision petitioner on 05.09.2003 for which the petitioner executed a loan agreement and also signed a cheque for Rs.1,50,000/by mentioning the date as 08.11.2005. Again during first week of January 2004, the petitioner approached the respondent for additional sum of Rs.1,80,000/-. On the second occasion also, he executed another agreement of loan and issued a cheque dated 15.11.2005. Thereafter the respondent presented the cheques on 08.11.2005 on 15.11.2005 respectively. Both the cheques were returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds.

¶26

¶27

Therefore the respondent got issued the legal

¶28

notice dated 05.12.2005. The accused sent a reply notice dated 15.12.2005 and failed to comply with legitimate request of the respondent-complainant. Therefore, the petitioner denied the alleged offence and pleaded not guilty.

¶29

Thereupon the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 4

¶30

on behalf of the respondent and marked Exs.P1 to P14. The petitioner was examined as DW1 and he got his wife examined as DW2. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and passed the above order of conviction and sentence.

¶31

Besides himself, the respondent examined PWs.2 and 3, who are the attestors of Ex.P13 and P14loan agreements to prove the execution of the loan agreements.

¶32

¶33

The Trial Court believed the evidence of PWs.2

¶34

and 3, who are the attestors of Exs.P13 and P14 and observed that the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Section 138 of N.I. Act and

¶35

accepting the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

¶36

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- only and he executed the loan agreement and issued two cheques in advance mentioning the future date of 2005. Both the cheques were issued for Rs.50,000/-.

¶37

The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner executed loan agreements Exs.P13 and P14 only after receiving the consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,80,000/- respectively in the presence of PWs2. and 3 and the cheques issued by the petitioner were dishonoured for want of sufficiency of

¶38

¶39

funds. Therefore, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court rightly found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and submitted that there

¶40

are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner.

¶41

By the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the respondent-

¶42

complainant has proved that the petitioner issued Exs.P2 and P3, cheques for Rs.1,50,000/and Rs.1,80,000/- respectively, for discharge of the legally enforceable debts availed by him on 05.09.2003 in the month of January 2004. DW2 who is none other than the wife of the petitioner has only deposed about the quarrel between the accused and the respondent in connection with the demand of repayment of loan amount. She also admitted in her evidence that the accused handed over the documents pertaining to the site to the complainant along with two blank cheques. She has not stated anywhere in the evidence that the

¶43

¶44

petitioner has not availed the loan under Exs.P13 and P14 loan agreements. The evidence further indicates that after availing the loan from the respondent-complainant, the petitioner has handed over the documents pertaining to his site in token of the security along with two blank cheques which were subsequently dishonoured when the respondent-complainant presented the same in the bank.

¶45

Insofar as the sentence imposed against the petitioner is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is working as a Marketing Assistant, in Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF) which is a Government undertaking, has already deposited Rs.2,31,000/- and he is ready to deposit the balance amount.

¶46

Considering the evidence available on record the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court rightly found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with

¶47

¶48

the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the Appellate Court.

¶49

The Appellate Court has set aside the sentence

¶50

of six months and has imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment of the Appellate Court is confirmed. The revision petitioner is directed to deposit the balance compensation amount ordered by the Appellate Court within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision petition filed

¶52

by the petitioner is dismissed, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.09.2010 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Crl.A.71/2009.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

JT/-

M K Mudalagiri v. a S Rangegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M K Mudalagiri v. a S Rangegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Chida @ Chidananda Vs State by Pandapura Police

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ganesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ummer Moidin S/O Moidin Vs Sri Somanatha Kotian S/O Siddu Poojary

Smt Zubeda Vs Sri Somanatha Kotian

B Suma Vs v Lakshmi