Dismissed

Ashoka v. Yogachari K v

Karnataka HC30 Nov 2020CRL.RP/1035/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenged a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the petitioner pleaded guilty without full comprehension. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the plea was voluntary and recorded in a language the petitioner understood, and no evidence is required in summary proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.

Ashoka Vs Yogachari K v — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.R.P.No.1035/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1035/2017

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

ASHOK S/O GOWDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O SABBATHI GATE VILLAGE, HANDRANGI POST, KONANUR HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. … PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

YOGACHARI K.V., S/O VENKATACHARI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O FORT ROAD, KONANUR VILLAGE & HOBLI, ARKALGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. … RESPONDENT

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.10.2014 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARAKALAGUDU IN C.C.NO.1396/2013 BY CONVICTING THE PETITIONER AND THE SAME ORDER WAS CONFIRMED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN BY DISMISSING THE

¶14

Crl.R.P.No.1035/2017

¶15

¶16

APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.02.2016 IN CRL.A.NO.163/2014 AND THE PETITIONER TO BE ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE ALLEGED AGAINST HIM.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Heard the petitioner’s counsel.

¶20

Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence dated 17.10.2014 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Arakalgudu in Crime No.139/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the NI Act’ for short) which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.163/2014 dated 15.02.2016, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶21

Respondent filed complaint in PCR No.503/2013, against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner issued cheque for Rs.1,25,000/- in his favour drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Konanur Branch towards discharge of the debt borrowed by

¶22

Crl.R.P.No.1035/2017

¶23

¶24

him. He further alleged that when he presented the said cheque, the same was returned on 18.09.2013 with an endorsement “funds insufficient” and thereafter, despite the issue of notice dated 30.09.2013 for payment of cheque amount, the accused failed to pay the same. Thus, he alleged that the petitioner without making proper arrangement for realization issued the cheque and committed the offence of cheating punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

¶25

On taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate registered the case in C.C.No.1396/2013 and summoned the petitioner. Learned Magistrate recorded the plea of the petitioner formulating the substance of the accusation to the effect that the petitioner issued the cheque for discharging his liability without making arrangement, thereby committed the offence of cheating punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

¶26

Crl.R.P.No.1035/2017

¶27

¶28

The plea was read over to the petitioner and explained to him, petitioner pleaded guilty. On the basis of such plea of guilt, the Trial Court convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to fine of Rs.1,25,000/-, in default to pay fine undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year.

¶29

The petitioner challenged the said order before the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hassan in Crl.A.No.163/2014. The learned Sessions Judge on hearing the parties by the impugned order dated 15.02.2016 dismissed the appeal.

¶30

Aggrieved by the said orders, the above revision petition is filed. Sri Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds of the revision petition submits that the petitioner pleaded guilty without understanding the question posed to him by the Trial Court and legal

¶31

Crl.R.P.No.1035/2017

¶32

¶33

consequences of the same. He further submits that the Trial Court did not give him proper opportunity before recording the plea.

¶34

As per, illustration (e) under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, there is a presumption that the judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. The order of the trial Court shows that the trial Court read over and explained to the accused the substance of the accusation. The accused admitted the guilt unequivocally. On satisfying that the petitioner has voluntarily pleaded guilty, the Trial Court recorded the same and convicted him.

¶35

The First Appellate Court on perusing the Trial Court records held that the plea was recorded in the language known to the petitioner and the subsequent version of the petitioner that he was not able to understand the substance of the accusation or its implications are only after thought.

¶36

Crl.R.P.No.1035/2017

¶37

¶38

10. The First Appellate Court referring to

¶39

Section 143 of the NI Act and Sections 262 and 265 of Cr.P.C held that the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act are summary in nature and in such cases, there is no necessity for the Trial Court to record any evidence or to give any findings for the conviction.

¶40

The First Appellate Court on perusing the records satisfied that the petitioner pleaded guilty before the Court and that was recorded in the language known to the petitioner. The petitioner has not pleaded any fraud or mischief. Under the circumstance, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the orders of the Courts below. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

HA/-

Ashoka v. Yogachari K v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashoka v. Yogachari K v

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nazeer Sab @ Nazser Ahamed Ulla

M/S Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Syed Irfan

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs P S Manjunath

Doddaiah @ Mariswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Arun Kumar S/O Late Basegowda Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr. Siddalingappa S/O Shekharappa Vs the State of Karnataka