Criminal Revision Petition filed to set aside conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. Petitioner failed to appear; court noted lack of substantive grounds for interference. Petition dismissed.
The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.61 OF 2008
BETWEEN:
Sri. Jagdish Ahuja, Age 59 years, Son of Udhavdas Ahuja, Ex-partner, M/s. Alankar Agencies, Now residing at No.7, Sreeram Badvan, Shivaji Path, “B” – Cabin, Thane (West), Bombay – 400 602. …PETITIONER (By Shri. Chandrashekar .P, Advocate for M/s. Ravi B Naik, Associates)
AND:
B.P.L. Limited, BPL Towers, No.13, Kasturba Road, Bangalore – 560 001, By Mr. A. Raman, Manager – Commercial and
2
Power of Attorney Holder. …RESPONDENT
(By Smt. Shobhith N Shetty, Advocate for M/s. M.V.Kini and Company)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order dated 28.6.2007 passed by the XXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.1433/2006 and also set aside the order dated 20.7.2006 passed by the XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and XXII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in C.C.No.27375/2002.
This petition coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
The counsel for the petitioner is absent though he was
present on the earlier occasion and the matter was heard in part.
However, at the request of the counsel for the petitioner, that he
needs to examine the records further, the matter stood adjourned. Now, the counsel for the petitioner remains absent.
Heard the Counsel for the respondents.
court in a complaint for an offence punishable under Section
3
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’, for brevity). The petitioner, who was one of the partners of the accused – firm, was arraigned as the accused on the footing that the respondent had engaged in the business of manufacture of electronic goods with accused no.1, a partnership firm, of which the present petitioner, among three others, were the partners. And in the course of business transactions, consignments had been supplied to the accused, which have been duly acknowledged and several payments were made in respect of such consignments and there was delay and default in respect of other supplies. Therefore, at a point of time, it was found that the accused was due to the complainant a total sum of Rs.,17,70,608/-and on repeated requests, in part payment, the present petitioner, in his capacity as a partner of accused no.1 - firm, as well as on behalf of other partners, had issued two cheques. The same when presented for encashment, had been dishonoured and therefore, notices were
4
issued under Section 138 of the NI Act and the same not having been complied with, the complaint was brought.
It transpires that accused no.2 had died during the pendency of the complaint and insofar as accused nos.4 and 5 are concerned, had challenged their arraignment as accused before this court in a criminal petition and the same has been allowed. However, since it was admitted that the present petitioner was the signatory to the cheque, the matter was proceeded against the present petitioner. The defence set up was to the effect that there were business transactions between the complainant and the firm of which the present petitioner was the partner and in the course of transactions, certain cheques endorsed in blank were left with the complainant, which had merged with the various group companies and taking advantage of the blank cheques issued earlier, a false case was sought to be foisted against accused. This defence was set at naught by the trial court and the trial court held that the complainant had succeeded in establishing a case and convicted
5
the accused no.3 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.16,60,000/-, of which Rs.15,70,608/- was to be paid as compensation to the complainant. The said judgment was challenged in appeal and the appellate court has affirmed the same. It is this which is sought to be questioned in the present revision petition.
the courts below and that the scope in a revision before this court is limited, it is noticed that the contentions raised before
the trial court as well as before the lower appellate court are sought to be magnified and beyond that, there is no ground urged, which would go to the root of the matter, which would certainly warrant interference by this court. Therefore, in the absence of any such ground, the petition does not merit consideration and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
nv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. merits interference given the concurrent findings of lower courts and absence of grounds going to the root of the matter.
Whether the petitioner's absence warrants dismissal of the revision petition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Jagdish Ahuja
B.P.L. Limited
Andhyaruja Sukumaran
M. N. Venkatachaliah
Satyendra Narayan
N. N. Satyendranath
P. K. Bardhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
