Criminal Revision Petition challenging conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the trial and appellate courts did not take a perverse view in rejecting defences of coercion and non-adjustment of security deposit.
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.109/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.109/2017
BETWEEN :
T.R.SRINIVASAIAH S/O K.RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.1110, JHANSI LAXMI BAI ROAD VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSORE – 08 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.MANJUNATH R, ADVOCATE)
AND :
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD. CHIKKAMAGALURU REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR R.G. ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101 …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.M.S.RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 24.02.2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN C.C.NO.2129/2012 AND ORDER DATED 22.10.2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.43/2014.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 9TH NOVEMBER 2020, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.109/2017
2
O R D E R
“Whether the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the Act’ for short) suffer illegality, impropriety or incorrectness?” is the question involved in this petition.
Crl.R.P.No.109/2017
3
before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (Camp at Mysuru) (‘the KAT’ for short) in Appeal No. 649/1997. The KAT vide Ex.D1 the order dated 06.09.2020 partly allowed the said appeal. In the said proceedings the petitioner had contended that a sum of Rs.15,000/- deposited by him as security deposit was pending with the bank and the bank has not adjusted the said sum in the loan amount.
Crl.R.P.No.109/2017
4
Crl.R.P.No.109/2017
5
Crl.R.P.No.109/2017
6
respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The trial Court further held that in default to pay the fine amount, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Crl.R.P.No.109/2017
7
Court was as follows:
(i) The bank obtained the cheque Ex.P1 under
coercion;
(ii) The bank did not adjust the security deposit pending to his credit with it as per the order of KAT under Ex.D1;
(iii) The bank itself was liable to pay him the subsistence allowance as per Ex.D2, the order of the KAT; therefore, he was not liable to pay any amount to the bank.
(i) The petitioner has not rebutted the presumption attached to the holder of the cheque as contemplated under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act;
(ii) The alleged story of coercion was not substantiated;
(iii) Ex.D3 the account extracts produced by the petitioner himself shows that the petitioner was due to the bank;
Crl.R.P.No.109/2017
8
(iv) Ex.P6 the Arbitration Award shows that the
award amount was Rs.46,400/- with future interest at 17% per annum.
Crl.R.P.No.109/2017
9
Therefore, both the Courts rejected the said defence.
This Court does not find any perversity in that.
Crl.R.P.No.109/2017
10
due was Rs.45,035/- and petitioner was liable to pay that with interest accruing thereon. In the notice, the complainant claimed that the security deposit along with accrued interest was Rs.16,343/- and even after adjusting that, the amount due as on 30.03.2000 was Rs.28,692/-. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence to show that he had repaid the said sum of Rs.28,692/- and cleared the liability. Therefore, the Courts below rightly rejected the said contention.
Crl.R.P.No.109/2017
11
person of ordinary prudence would have taken action for recovery of the said amount within a reasonable time. Only after initiation of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, petitioner came up with the claim that the order under Ex.D2 was not complied. Therefore both the Courts rightly rejected the claim and held that the petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act that the cheque Ex.P1 was issued towards discharge of debt/liability.
By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the trial Court and the first appellate Court have adopted a perverse approach in appreciation of the evidence and legal position.
Under the circumstances, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned orders. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.
akc
Sd/JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order of conviction and sentence for crushing of a cheque suffered illegality, impropriety or incorrectness?
Whether the petitioner successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding issuance of the cheque for consideration and discharge of debt?
Whether the plea that the cheque was issued under coercion was substantiated?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
T.R. Srinivasaiah
Chikkamagaluru District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.
K.S. Mudagal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
