The High Court of Karnataka refused to admit a criminal revision petition against a conviction for cheque dishonour under section 138 NI Act, noting non-compliance with suspension conditions and lack of procedural grounds. The petition was dismissed.
Petitioner accused acquitted
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 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.95 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI B C MANJUNATHA, S/O CHANDRE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O SHANKTI NAGAR, HESAGAL VILLAGE & POST, MUDIGERE TALUK-577132, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI LOHITASWA BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI M S GOPALA, S/O M A SHANAKAR SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, ASST. DIRECTOR, R/O SHANKTI NAGAR, HESAGAL VILLAGE & POST, MUDIGERE TALUK-577132, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRADEEP NAIK K, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO 1.SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN C.C.NO.649/2012, DATED 01.04.2016, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
2
JMFC, MUDIGERE AND ORDER IN CRL.A.NO.76/2016, DATED 08.07.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL SESSION AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT CHIKKAMAGALURU. 2. CONSEQUENTLY BY PLEASE TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING:
ORDER
This revision is filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 01.04.2016 in C.C. No.649/2012 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere and the order dated 08.07.2017 in Crl.A. No.76/2016 by the I Additional Session and Special Judge at Chikkamagaluru.
respondent regarding admission.
The said cheque was presented for collection, but it was returned on 05.06.2012 with an endorsement stating that funds insufficient
3
in the account of the petitioner accused. Thereafter the respondent complainant issued a legal notice which was served on 23.06.2012. But there was no reply to the said notice. Hence the complainant lodged a private complaint under Section 400 Cr.P.C. alleging that the accused has committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4
appellate Court affirmed the aforesaid factual findings. The trial Court and the appellate court arrived at a specific concurrent factual finding that the cheque was issued by the accused. Thereafter in pursuance of the compromise the accused has paid Rs.20,000/- on 04.01.2014 and he agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- on or before 04.02.2014 but the accused petitioner has not fulfilled his obligation and has committed default in payment.
5
revision petitioner and respondent this Court is of the view that there are no valid grounds to admit the revision petition.
Accordingly, I pass the following –
ORDER
This revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
ykl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition seeking acquittal for cheque dishonour should be admitted in the absence of valid grounds.
Whether the High Court should interfere with concurrent factual findings under section 397 Cr.P.C. without perversity.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
B C Manjunatha
M S Gopala
Ashok G. Nijannavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
