Dismissed

Sri Devapraphakar S v. Vs Sri M Ramesh

Karnataka HC24 Feb 2021CRL.RP/587/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition seeking to set aside conviction under Section 138 NI Act, the High Court held that there were no grounds to interfere since lower courts had recorded concurrent findings of fact regarding the cheque dishonour, and it is not the revision court's role to re-analyse evidence absent perversity.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petition dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act stood confirmed.

Sri Devapraphakar S v Vs Sri M Ramesh — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021 BEFORE

¶2

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.587 OF 2018

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI DEVAPRABHAKAR S V, S/O LATE S M VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O AMMASANDRA VILLAGE, GUDIBANDA TALUK, CHIKKABALAPUR DISTRICT, WORKING AT NO.20107, ES (EJ/INT.TPT,DPH/ELECL/ESC392 /560002024/10838 739750, BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED, JALHALLI BENGALURU 560013. ...PETITIONER

¶6

(BY SRI JAIRAJ G AND H.RAJANNA, ADVOCATES)

¶7

AND:

¶8

SRI M RAMESH, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.8/47, 4TH BLOCK, GOPALAPPA GARDEN, DODDABOMMASANDRA, BENGALURU 560087. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M PRAKASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

¶10

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED XV A.C.M.M, IN C.C.NO.8178/2011 BY ITS JUDGMENT DATED 03.09.2016 AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1146/2016, DATED 27.04.2018 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

¶11

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING:

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner regarding admission.

¶14

The present revision petition is filed for setting aside the judgment and sentence dated 3.9.2016 passed in C.C. No.8178/2011 by the XV A.C.M.M. and the judgment passed by the LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A. No.1146/2016 dated 27.4.2018 and to acquit the petitioner.

¶15

The brief facts stated in the revision petition are that on 12.04.2010 the accused had borrowed a loan of Rs.50,000/- for his domestic necessities and had issued a post dated cheque on 12.11.2010 for repayment of the said loan. The cheque was presented on 12.11.2010 to the Karnataka Bank Ltd., City Civil Court complex, Bengaluru, but the cheque returned with an

¶16

¶17

endorsement “funds insufficient”. On 26.11.2010 the complainant issued a legal notice demanding repayment of the debt. Despite service of the said notice the accused did not pay the amount. Hence a private complaint was filed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶18

On appearance of the accused the charges were read

¶19

out but the accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court on analysis of evidence adduced by the respective parties arrived at the factual finding that accused had issued the cheque in question for Rs.50,000/- towards discharge of the debt or liability. The cheque was presented to the bank for payment within the period of its validity. But the said cheque was returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds. The accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the accused was directed to pay a fine amount of Rs.52,000/and out of the said amount an amount of Rs.50,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant and balance amount of Rs.2,000/was forfeited to the State. The appellate Court affirmed the aforesaid factual findings of the trial Court. Thus it is evident that

¶20

¶21

both the Courts below have arrived at a concurrent factual finding that the accused has committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶22

It is well settled that in exercise of Criminal jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the High Court does not in the absence of perversity upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the revisional Court to reanalyze and reinterpret the evidence on record.

¶23

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no valid grounds to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, I pass the following –

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petition is dismissed.

¶26

ykl

Sri Devapraphakar S v. Vs Sri M Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Devapraphakar S v. Vs Sri M Ramesh

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

Sri Thimmappa Vs Govindappa

M/S Sree Gokulam Chit and Vs Mr. Maccashafeeq Khan

Suryakanth @ Suresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Ajith Ranka Vs Preethi Ranka

Sri. Somanna L Vs Smt. Pavana

K. Ravikumar Vs Sri. Pandu Kumar. K. v.