Dismissed

Sri.M. Nagaraj v. Smt. Vijayalakshmi

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2013CRL.RP/64/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition under Section 397 CrPC challenging conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour, the High Court rejected the plea to set aside the impugned orders. The Court held that the evidence failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that the petition was not maintained, directing the petitioner's immediate release.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released forthwith. No change in trial court conviction or sentence.

Sri.M. Nagaraj Vs Smt. Vijayalakshmi — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

Crl RP 64/2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.64/2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri M. Nagaraj, S/o Muniraju, Aged about 33 years, Residing at No.3580, 4^th Cross, 9^th Main, Kaverinagar, Banashankari II Stage, Bangalore-560 070. (By Sri Manjunath R, Adv.) AND: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, W/o P. Srinivasan, Aged about 39 years, Residing at No.558, 43^rd Cross, 8^th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 082.

¶9

Petitioner

¶10

Respondent

¶11

(By Sri H.V.Rajaram, Adv.)

¶12

This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set-aside the judgment and conviction and sentence dated 26.07.2012 passed by XVI A.C.M.M., Bangalore, IN C.C. No.25733/2009 and the order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the P.O. FTC-IV, Bangalore in Crl.A.No.520/2012.

¶13

Crl RP 64/2013

¶14

¶15

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard learned counsel for parties.

¶18

There are concurrent finding of Courts below that

¶19

petitioner/accused has committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶20

It is the case of complainant that she was running cloth business and accused was one of the customers. The accused requested complainant to lend a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to meet the marriage expenses of his sister. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to accused. The accused had issued a cheque to repay the

¶21

said amount. On presentation, cheque was dishonoured for want of funds. The complainant caused legal notice but there was no response from accused. Therefore, complainant initiated complaint under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

Crl RP 64/2013

¶23

¶24

Before the trial court, accused raised contention that he had borrowed only Rs.10,000/- for repayment of which he had issued a blank cheque. The said cheque has been misused by complainant.

¶25

The Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence of accused and taking into consideration the conduct of accused, rejected the defence of accused. The Trial Court having regard to the presumption under Section 138 of N.I. Act held accused guilty of an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Therefore, petitioner was before first appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.520/2012. The learned Judge of the first appellate Court on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the findings of trial court.

¶26

The law is fairly well settled that this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction, does not sit as a Court of Second Appeal. This Court can interfere with the impugned judgment if it is demonstrated that the Courts below have committed glaring errors in

¶27

Crl RP 64/2013

¶28

¶29

appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner.

¶30

On hearing learned counsel for parties and going through impugned judgments, I find that defence theory put forth by the accused that he had borrowed Rs.10,000/- and had given the blank cheque for repayment of said loan and executed a promissory note and handed over title deeds, has been disbelieved by Courts below as the evidence of accused and his witnesses does not constitute the test of preponderance of possibilities. The evidence is not sufficient to rebut presumption available under Section 139 of N.I. Act.

¶31

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that during pendency of proceedings before first appellate Court, petitioner has paid Rs.1,60,000/- to complainant and Rs.40,000/- is in deposit before the court below. If that is so, he can bring the same to the notice of trial Court in recovery proceedings.

¶32

Crl RP 64/2013

¶33

¶34

There are no reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings of courts below. The petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of petition, the petitioner shall be released, forthwith.

¶35

A copy of this order shall be made available to the learned counsel for petitioner/accused.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

kcm

Sri.M. Nagaraj v. Smt. Vijayalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.M. Nagaraj v. Smt. Vijayalakshmi

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

Vikas Kumar Gupta Vs State by Soladevanahalli Ps

Devesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Karnataka by

Raju @ Rangaswamy Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt Dr Anuradha Vs Dr Vinay @ Vinay Sirigere

Sri Faisal Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka

Ananda Kumar K M Vs State by Alur Police