High Court rejected the Criminal Revision Petitioner's prayer to set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act. The Court found no infirmity in the lower courts' judgment, dismissing the revision for lack of merits.
Revision petition dismissed. Accused directed to pay fine within thirty days of the order.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
CRL.R.P. No. 57 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
BANGALORE-560 058. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR P.SUBRAMANI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUNDAR RAJ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
RAJEEV KUMAR S/O. MAGHARAJ .P JAIN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. MEGH ELECTRICALS, NO.7, 2ND FLOOR, CHICKPET CROSS, LM LANE, CHICKPET CROSS, BANGALORE-560 053. …RESPONDENT
2
(BY SRI. M.D. RAGHUNATH AND P.S. SHAMEEL AHMED., ADVOCATES)
THIS CRL. R.P. IS FILED U/S 397 R/W. 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED: 11.12.2018 PASSED BY LEARNED LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, (CCH-67) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.439/2018 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED: 19.02.2018 PASSED BY LEARNED XII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.16786/2015.
THIS CRL.R.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though this petition is listed today for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal having regard to
the facts and circumstances of the case.
3
confirming the judgment passed by the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru, in C.C.No.16786/2015 dated 19.02.2018.
"The appellant/accused had business transaction with complainant and towards purchase of products he was due in all a sum of Rs.3,32,257/- as on 31.03.2015 and on communication of the same accused had paid a sum of Rs.1,23,495/- and has balance amount of Rs.2,08,762/- was due towards part payment of which accused had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,66,025/- on 18.02.2015 drawn on State Bank of India, Peenya Branch bearing No.335951 assuring to pay the balance within a short span. On presentation of the said cheque for encashment same came to be returned with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Inspite of issuance of legal notice appellant has not
4
paid the cheque amount. Hence, this complaint".
After receipt of summons, the accused appeared. The substance of accusation was read over to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
behalf of prosecution:
The list of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 : Rajeev Kumar
The List of documents exhibits for the prosecution:
| Ex.P.1 | : Cheque |
|---|---|
| Ex.P.1(a) | : Signature of the accused |
| Ex.P.2 & 3 | : Two bank endorsements |
| Ex.P.4 | : Office copy of the legal notice |
| Ex.P.5 & 6 | : Two postal receipts |
| Ex.P.7 & 8 | : Two postal acknowledgments |
5
| Ex.P.9 to 14 | : | The certified copy of the |
|---|---|---|
| receipts | ||
| Ex.P.15 | : | the certified copy of the confirmation of account |
| statement | ||
| Ex.P.16 | : | The certified copy of E-mail. |
The List of witnesses and documents for the defence
DW-1 : Subramani .P
The List of documents exhibited on behalf of the accused:
NIL
6
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused
submits that no goods were supplied by the complainant and also no purchase order was produced before Court. The Accused/Petitioner has no due to be payable to the complainant. He has not sent warranty certificate inspite of his repeated requests and demand. What was the amount due was already settled and the complainant is trying to take unfair advantage of the earlier business, cheque which was given as security for earlier transaction is misused.
that the contention of the accused regarding liability
and denial is not correct and cheque was issued in respect of the costs of goods sold to him. The accused also admitted his liability. The learned Trial Judge appreciated the evidence, considered the materials on record and directed him to pay the fine as stated above.
7
The claim of the complainant is that he supplied the goods and cheque was issued regarding the payment. On the other hand, the accused stated that in the past he used to make business transaction i.e., buy goods with the complainant. But the complainant has abused his position and misused cheque that was issued as security on different transaction.
8
Rs.1,66,025/-. In so far as the accused is concerned, his defence at one stretch is that he used to purchase and repay the purchase money nothing is due and again warranty certificate was not issued by the complainant. He does not say specifically that what was the amount of goods purchased by him and date of purchase. Further he says that the cheque was issued as security to earlier purchase and not regarding the payment of goods purchased. He fails to explain why cheque was given for security and what happened to the goods, if there were no warranty certificate. In whole set of circumstances, it could be seen that if the emailEx.P.16 sent by the complainant he has admitted the transaction total due amount of Rs.2,08,762/- and cheque amount of Rs.1,66,025/- above stated to be part amount.
9
that civil suit is also filed for recovery against the accused. In this connection it is necessary to observe there is no bar for initiating civil proceedings only limitation would be complainant is not entitled to recover
his dues in both proceedings. Thus any payment made either voluntarily or through orders of the court invariably is towards liability. In so far as present case is concerned the learned Trial Judge has ordered payment of Rs. 2,30,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.2,27,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and remaining amount of Rs.3,000/- shall be remitted to the state. The learned Appellate Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, in the light of presumption available for Negotiable Instruments and the admission of the cheque.
10
find any infirmity, illegally and irregularity or perversity in the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge as well as by the learned Appellate Judge. Revision petition is lack of merits and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
hd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. has any merit to set aside the judgment in the cheque dishonour case.
Whether there is any infirmity, illegal or irregularity or perversity in the trial court and appellate court judgments.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Digiflic Enerpax Global Private Ltd;
Subramani .P;
Rajeev Kumar
N.K. Sudhindrarao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
