Allowed

Sandeep S. Gupta v. Shri. Rajendra Yamanappa Khemalapure

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2020CRL.RP/100050/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC against judgments under Section 138 NI Act. The Court set aside the lower court decisions due to a procedural irregularity wherein the accused's Section 313 statement was recorded before the completion of the respondent's evidence and cross-examination. The case was remanded to the JMFC for retrial.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; case restored to VI JMFC, Belagavi for retrial beginning with cross-examination of the respondent.

Sandeep S. Gupta Vs Shri. Rajendra Yamanappa Khemalapure — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

Dated this the 27^th day of August 2020

¶4

Before

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

Criminal Revision Petition No.100050 of 2019

¶7

Between

¶8

Sandeep S Gupta, Age: 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o New Balaji Bangles House, CTS 2441, Kamat Gaali, Belagavi. ...Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Vitthal S.Teli, Advocate)

¶10

A n d

¶11

Shri Rajendra Yamanappa Khemalapure, Age: 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Ram Nagar, Kangrali KH, Tal: Belagavi.

¶12

...Respondent

¶13

(By Sri. Bahubali N.Kanabargi, Advocate)

¶14

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397(1) read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to set aside the judgment dated 28.12.2018 in Crl.A. No.167/2018 by the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, wherein confirming the judgment dated 01.02.2018 passed by the VI JMFC, Belagavi, in C.C. No.1232/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, and thereby acquit the petitioner/accused for the offences under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶15

¶16

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on Admission, this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The impugned judgment dated 1^st February 2018 in Criminal Case No.1232 of 2017 on the file of the VI JMFC, Belagavi, and the judgment dated 28^th December 2018 on the file of the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, are perused.

¶19

The petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’ ) and sentenced to pay compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- with default simple imprisonment of one year.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶21

that the petitioner’s plea was recorded on 06.07.2017 and, on the same day, the respondent’s sworn statement, recorded earlier, is treated as evidence and further, on the same day, the petitioner’s statement is recorded under

¶22

¶23

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case is posted for marking of the documents from the respondent’s side and for cross-examination after recording petitioner’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has neither cross-examined the respondent nor led in any evidence. There is a procedural irregularity inasmuch as the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded much before the completion of the respondent’s evidence. The Section 313 statement should have been after the respondent’s evidence was completed including his cross-examination. This irregularity renders the entire proceeding from the stage of recording the accused’s plea vitiated. Therefore, neither of the impugned judgments can be sustained. The learned counsel relies upon a decision of this Court in Crl.R.P. No.100241/2018 decided on 13^th March 2019 in support of his submission that the impugned judgments will have to be set aside and the case remanded for re-trial from the stage of cross-examination of the respondent.

¶24

¶25

The learned counsel for the respondent does not

¶26

deny that the case was posted for further evidence of the respondent after the petitioner’s statement was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. There is force in the submission and the request made. As such, both will have to be accepted.

¶27

Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside and the case is restored to the Board of VI JMFC, Belagavi, for retrial commencing with the cross-examination of the respondent. The parties shall appear before the VI JMFC, Belagavi without further notice, on 14^th of September 2020. The revision petition is accordingly allowed.

¶28

The amount deposited by the petitioner shall be

¶29

refunded to the petitioner subject to identification.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Kms

Sandeep S. Gupta v. Shri. Rajendra Yamanappa Khemalapure

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep S. Gupta v. Shri. Rajendra Yamanappa Khemalapure

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs Smt.Archana W/O Keertivarma Pujar

Smt.Rajeshwar Tukaram Netalkar Vs Shri. Nagappa Dattatraya Ankolekar

Mukesh S/O Deodutta Gupta S/O. Deodutta Gupta Vs Nathmal S/O Laxminarayan Gaur

Shri. Bheemappa @ Bheemanna Vs Shri. Chandalingappa Mahantappa

G Devika Bai W/O G Subba Rao Vs the Gram Panchayath Karyalaya

Sri.Dinesh S/O Krishnand Vernekar Vs Sri.Omkar S/O Doulat Haldankar