Criminal Revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court held that the lower courts properly applied presumptions as the accused failed to rebut the alleged loan consideration despite denying the inflated cheque amount.
Petition dismissed. Conviction and sentence confirmed.
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.
Crl.R.P.No.1058/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1058/2017
BETWEEN :
SRI B.PRAKASH S/O P.BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O NO.45, 3RD CROSS ADJACENT TO KARADI MANE R.P.ROAD, NANJANGUD TOWN MYSURU DISTRICT-571 301 … PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
SRI SHIVANAYAKA S/O LATE NAGANAIK AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O NO.2685 MAHADESHWARA NILAYA 3RD CROSS, RP ROAD NANJANGUD TOWN MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 301 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.NATARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.122/2017 DATED 22.08.2017 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED
Crl.R.P.No.1058/2017
2
II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, NANJANGUD IN C.C.NO.447/2012 DATED 05.04.2017 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioner was the accused and the respondent was the complainant in CC No.447/2012. The parties will be referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Trial Court.
Cheque – Ex.P1 dated 03.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Nanjangudu Branch said to have been issued by the accused, for realization through his account. The Cheque was dishonoured as per the Memo – Ex.P2 dated 05.01.2012 with an endorsement “funds insufficient”.
Crl.R.P.No.1058/2017
3
Crl.R.P.No.1058/2017
4
accusation, trial was conducted against him. On hearing the parties, the Trial Court by the judgment and order dated 05.04.2017 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to fine of Rs.1,45,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Further, out of the fine amount, the Trial Court awarded Rs.1,40,000/- to the complainant as compensation.
Court held that since the accused admitted that the
Crl.R.P.No.1058/2017
5
Cheque belongs to his account and his signature on the same and also that there was a loan transaction between them, the complainant is entitled to the benefit of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the Cheque was issued towards discharge of liability. It was held that the accused failed to establish his defence that the loan borrowed under the Cheque - Ex.P1 was only Rs.20,000/-.
8 Sri P.Mahesha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant was admittedly a vegetable vendor and his lending capacity was not proved and both the Courts below failed to appreciate the said contention. He further submits that the Courts below should have accepted the defence that the loan borrowed under the Cheque was only Rs.20,000/-.
Crl.R.P.No.1058/2017
6
order of conviction and sentence submits that the accused did not deny the lending capacity at the earliest point of time by issuing any reply, even in the evidence of the defence witnesses, the lending capacity was not disputed. He further submits that under the circumstances, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were justified in drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was further corroborated by the evidence of the complainant.
Crl.R.P.No.1058/2017
7
cheque for inflated amount contrary to the actual loan, when notice was issued alleging that loan borrowed was Rs.1,20,000/-, in the natural course of events the accused should have countered the same. No man of ordinary prudence sits back when he borrowed only Rs.20,000/- and the liability of Rs.1,20,000/- was sought to be foisted to him. That circumstance militates against the petitioner and the Courts below considered the said conduct of the accused about the liability, in addition to the
Crl.R.P.No.1058/2017
8
presumption available under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
cross-examination of PW.1 an attempt was made to state that he had no lending capacity which he denied. When an attempt was made to say that he has no lending capacity simultaneously, the accused admitted that the complainant lent him loan of Rs.20,000/-. If the complainant was man of no means, then how he could lend Rs.20,000/- was not explained. To add to that, neither the accused nor his witnesses DWs.2 and 3 in their chief-examination whispered anything about the lending capacity of the complainant.
circumstances and the evidence on record, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that the defence of the accused that he had borrowed only Rs.20,000/- and the Cheque was presented with an
Crl.R.P.No.1058/2017
9
inflated amount was not proved. They rightly held the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the Cheque was issued for consideration and for discharge of liability was not rebutted by the accused.
Sd/JUDGE
KG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can interfere in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court regarding the quantum of loan and accused's lending capacity under Section 138 of the Negotiabl
Whether the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by proving the cheque amount was inflated.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
B. Prakash
Shivanayaka
K.S. Mudagal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
