The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act, holding no patent defect or jurisdictional error in the lower courts' decisions.
Revisions petition dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.350/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI PARWATHE GOWDA, S/O. MANJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.4219, 4TH STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 078.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.BHOJARAJA, ADV.)
AND:
SRI ANNE NIRMALA.J. W/O.ANTHONAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT.NO.468/492 11TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE, GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 002.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.A. JAYAPRAKASH, ADV)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2018 PASSED BY THE LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A. NO.1510/2016 AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
2
23.11.2016 PASSED BY THE XVIII ADDL. CMM, BENGALURU IN CC NO.32206/2011 AND THEREBY ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFENCE LEVELLED AGAINST HIM.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.03.2021 COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Accused in Criminal Case No.32206/2011 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One lakh] with default sentence
of simple imprisonment of two months, confirmed in Criminal Appeal 1510/2016 is before this court in this revision petition.
Complainant approached the XVIII Addl. CMM, Bengaluru under Section 200 Cr.PC. seeking action against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, contending that
3
accused was a cashier in M/s. Navya Bar and Restaurant owned by him availed loan of Rs.84,000/- on 10.3.2011 and towards the repayment of the said loan, he issued a cheque marked at Ex.P1 which on presentation got dishonoured; statutory notice was issued by him. There is no compliance to the callings of notice, hence sought for action.
4
"ORDER:
Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.PC. accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) and in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 (Two) months.
Acting under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.PC., out of the fine amount the complainant is entitled for Rs.90,000/(Rupees Ninety Thousand only) as compensation.
Acting under Section 357(1)(a) of Cr.PC., the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is defrayed to the State for the expenses incurred in the prosecution."
5
conviction judgment passed by the learned Magistrate and maintained the sentence by dismissing the appeal.
is in revision before this court. Interalia contending that both the courts have not properly appreciated the case of the Revision Petitioner and placed wrong presumption as against the accused and in favour of the complainant and sought for allowing the Revision Petition.
6
material on record which would establish that accused borrowed loan from strangers. He further contended that only for a short period accused worked in the bar and wife of complainant lending a loan to the accused within a short period is highly un-imaginable and thus sought for allowing the Revision Petition.
"Whether the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate that the accused committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh out of which a sum of Rs.90,000/- be paid as compensation to the complainant and confirmed by the first appellate court is suffering from patent defect or error of jurisdiction or illegality and calls for interference of this court?"
7
the following:
REASONS :
8
been misused by the complainant to foist false case against him.
9
the court is oath against oath in so far as the consideration under the cheque is concerned.
10
"Revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with provisions of law, finding recorded is based on material evidence is ignored or jurisdictional discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely."
11
patent defect or error of jurisdiction or illegality in the impugned judgments. Thus, the grounds urged in the Revision Petition are merit less and as such, the irresistible conclusion that this court can reach is to hold the point in Negative. Accordingly, following order is passed:
ORDER
Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
PL*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the first appellate court is suffering from patent defect, error of jurisdiction, or illegality warranting interference?
Whether the accused failed to properly rebut the presumption drawn under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CC Alavi Hazi Vs. Palapetty Muhammed and anotherReferred¶51
CC Alavi Hazi Vs. Palapetty Muhammed and another reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3578 · Who else cites this
Rangappa Vs MohanReferred¶51
Rangappa Vs Mohan reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 · Who else cites this
Amit Kapur vs. Rsmesh Chander and anotherReferred¶53
Amit Kapur vs. Rsmesh Chander and another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan Vs. Fatehkarkan MehduReferred¶53
State of Rajasthan Vs. Fatehkarkan Mehdu reported in (2017) 3 SCC 198 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Parvathie Gowda
Sri Anne Nirmala J.
V. SHISHANANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
