Dismissed

Smt.Suguna H J v. Sri.E.Kumaraswamy Naidu

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2022CRL.RP/1244/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Karnataka High Court admitted and dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition challenging a conviction and sentence under Section 138 of N.I.Act, accepting the lower courts' conclusions that the accused failed to cross-examine the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; higher courts' conclusion that petitioner failed to cross-examine PW1 upheld; sentence affirmed.

Smt.Suguna H J Vs Sri.E.Kumaraswamy Naidu — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1244 OF 2021

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Smt. Suguna H.J., Aged about 40 years, Proprietor of A.P.Enterprises, No.102, “Anand Altair”, Anand Group, 4^th Cross, 5^th Main, BMC Layout, Raghuvanahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru-560062.

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

(By Sri Gireesha R.J., Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Sri E.Kumaraswamy Naidu, Aged about 40 years, Proprietor of JMT Enterprises, R/at NO.21/38, 2^nd Main, Kaverappa Layout, AGS Layout, Bengaluru-560061.

¶11

…Respondent

¶12

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C.No.21236/2017 dated 19.12.2019 and etc.

¶13

:: 2 ::

¶14

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for admission through video conferencing this day, the Court made the following:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard the petitioner’s counsel at the time of admission.

¶17

The petitioner has challenged the

¶18

judgment dated 23.07.2021 passed by the LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.154/2020. The petitioner is accused in C.C.No.21236/2017, a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘N.I.Act’ for short).

¶19

It is the case of the respondent/ complainant that the petitioner issued two cheques for Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,21,750/-, respectively, on 15.06.2017 to clear part of her liability in connection with purchase of cement from the respondent. Since the said cheques were dishonored for want of funds in her bank account,

¶20

:: 3 ::

¶21

the respondent initiated action under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

¶22

The respondent adduced evidence as

¶23

PW1. The judgment of the trial Court shows that the petitioner did not cross examine PW1 inspite of giving several opportunities. Holding that the respondent’s evidence has remained unchallenged, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,05,000/- with default sentence for a period of three months imprisonment and out of the fine amount, Rs.3,00,000/- was ordered to be paid to the respondent towards compensation.

¶24

Aggrieved by this judgment of conviction,

¶25

the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.154/2020. The appellate Court has also observed the conduct of the

¶26

:: 4 ::

¶27

petitioner in not cross examining PW1 inspite of giving sufficient chances. It is also observed that the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the case and that she did not comply with the order passed by it on 24.12.2020, and in view of this, the appeal came to be dismissed.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner

¶29

submits that actually the petitioner has cleared the entire money that she owed to the respondent and that the cheques in question were issued by way of security. But this contention cannot be accepted, because, if really the entire money had been paid and that there did not exist any liability, nothing prevented the petitioner from crossexamining PW1 to that effect.

¶30

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was denied of an opportunity of cross examining PW1. This contention cannot be accepted, because, it is not as though the

¶31

:: 5 ::

¶32

petitioner was denied of an opportunity of cross examining PW1, rather, it may be stated that she did not avail the opportunities given to her by the trial Court. In this view, I do not find any merit to admit this petition. Both the Courts have come to right conclusion to hold the petitioner guilty of the offence. The sentence imposed on her is also adequate. Hence revision petition is dismissed .

¶33

IA No.1/2021 is dismissed as not pressed, as the revision petition is filed within time. IA No.2/2021 does not survive for consideration. It stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Kmv/-

Smt.Suguna H J v. Sri.E.Kumaraswamy Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Suguna H J v. Sri.E.Kumaraswamy Naidu

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 Amit Mavi Vs State of Karnataka

Ali Ashpak @ Asfak Hanif Thara Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Abrar Kazi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Yamuna Vs the State

Sri Vijaya Vs the State

Puttamallaiah Vs State by Chikkanayakanahalli Police