Dismissed

Chandra Naik v. K R Manjunatha Sastri

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2013CRL.RP/175/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenges appellate orders in a cheque bouncing case. The High Court upheld concurrent findings by lower courts, holding that the respondent proved the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed.

Chandra Naik Vs K R Manjunatha Sastri — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.175 OF 2013

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

CHANDRA NAIK S/O NAGANAIKA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS MPM EMPLOYEE NO. 06703 STOCK ROOM MPM LTD PAPER TOWN BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. ... PETITIONER.

¶8

(By Sri. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

K R MANJUNATHA SASTRI S/O RAMA SASTRI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS GURU KRUPA NILAYA BEHIND MUNICIPAL OFFICE BHUTHANAGUDI 5TH CROSS OLD TOWN

¶10

¶11

BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. ... RESPONDENT.

¶12

(By Sri. PRASANNA B R, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 2.12.2011 PASSED BY THE C.J. & ADDL. J.M.F.C., BHADRAVATHI IN C.C.NO.2367/2009 AND THE ORDER DATED 15.01.2013 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C., BHADRAVATHI IN CRL.A.NO.3/2012.

¶14

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

There are concurrent findings of the courts below that the respondent (complainant), has proved that petitioner (accused) has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶17

I have heard Shri Naveen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prasanna, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶18

The law is purely well-settled that this court, while

¶19

exercising revisional jurisdiction, does not sit as a court of

¶20

¶21

second appeal. This court cannot interfere in the impugned judgment, unless it is demonstrated that the courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or glaring errors of law, resulting in manifest injustice to the petitioner.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶23

that the respondent (complainant) has caused one more legal notice, apart from the legal notice Exhibit D1. Therefore, the complaint should have been instituted on the basis of first legal notice. The learned Trial Judge has held that there is no factual basis for this contention. The petitioner had not produced the first legal notice said to have been caused by the complainant. Therefore, this submission cannot be accepted.

¶24

The learned Trial Judge has disbelieved the defence

¶25

put forth by the accused that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant and handed over signed blank cheque to the complainant. The learned Trial Judge has held that the accused is an educated person and it is hard to believe

¶26

¶27

that accused would give a blank signed cheque for securing a loan of Rs.5,000/-.

¶28

The learned Judge of the First Appellate Court, on re-

¶29

appreciation of evidence, has confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. The petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption available under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There are no reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings

¶30

recorded by the courts below.

¶31

The petition is dismissed.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Chandra Naik v. K R Manjunatha Sastri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Naik v. K R Manjunatha Sastri

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 Ramesh Nathumal Lakhani Vs the State of Karnataka

B Meenakshi Vs Arathi

Sri Loki @ Lokesh Vs State of Karnataka

Narayana Rao Vs Raghavendra Udupa

Sri T Sadashiva Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Icici Bank Ltd. Vs State by Extension Police Station