Dismissed

Smt R Kalai Selvi v. Mr R G Prakash

Karnataka HC14 Jan 2022CRL.RP/514/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Five criminal revision petitions challenging convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were dismissed. The High Court held that the petitioner had no admissible grounds for revision as facts were correctly found against her. Furthermore, the Court denied bail under Section 428 Cr.P.C. because the petitioner was serving consecutive default imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; applications for relief treated as filed in dismissed petitions also disposed of.

Smt R Kalai Selvi Vs Mr R G Prakash — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.515 OF 2020

¶6

C/W

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.510 OF 2020 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.512 OF 2020 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.513 OF 2020 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.514 OF 2020 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.516 OF 2020

¶8

IN CRL. RP No.515/2020:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT.R.KALAI SELVI, W/O THANGAMANI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.315, VIGNESH NILAYA, 6TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 73.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MR.BHEEMANNA, S/O HANUMEGOUDRU,

¶15

¶16

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CIVIL ENGINEER, NO.571, 5TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 73.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI.S.V.VADAVADAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2020 PASSED BY THE LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-76) BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.2163/2019 AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 29.08.2019 PASSED BY THE XXVI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.19433/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE CHARGE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I. ACT.

¶20

IN CRL. RP No.510/2020:

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

SMT.R.KALAI SELVI, W/O THANGAMANI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.315, VIGNESH NILAYA, 6TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 73.

¶23

…PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶25

¶26

AND:

¶27

MR.R.G.PRAKASH, S/O GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO.273, 7TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 73.

¶28

…RESPONDENT

¶29

(BY SRI.S.V.VADAVADAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2020 PASSED BY THE LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-76 IN CRL.A.NO.2164/2019 AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 29.08.2019 PASSED BY THE XXVI A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.142/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE CHARGE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I. ACT.

¶31

IN CRL. RP No.512/2020:

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

SMT.R.KALAI SELVI, W/O THANGAMANI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.315, VIGNESH NILAYA, 6TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 73. (BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

…PETITIONER

AND:

MR.BHEEMANNA, S/O HANUMEGOUDRU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CIVIL ENGINEER, NO.571, 5TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 73.

¶38

…RESPONDENT

¶39

(BY SRI.S.V.VADAVADAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶40

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2020 PASSED BY THE LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-76 IN CRL.A.NO.2162/2019 AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 29.08.2019 PASSED BY THE XXVI A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.26482/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE CHARGE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I. ACT.

¶41

IN CRL. RP No.513/2020:

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

SMT.R.KALAI SELVI, W/O THANGAMANI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.315, VIGNESH NILAYA, 6TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 73.

¶44

…PETITIONER

¶45

(BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶46

¶47

AND:

¶48

MR.BHEEMANNA, S/O HANUMEGOUDRU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CIVIL ENGINEER, NO.571, 5TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 73.

¶49

…RESPONDENT

¶50

(BY SRI.S.V.VADAVADAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶51

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2020 PASSED BY THE LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-76 IN CRL.A.NO.2170/2019 AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 29.08.2019 PASSED BY THE XXVI A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.24889/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE CHARGE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I. ACT.

¶52

IN CRL. RP No.514/2020:

¶53

BETWEEN:

¶54

SMT.R.KALAI SELVI, W/O THANGAMANI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.315, VIGNESH NILAYA, 6TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 73.

¶55

…PETITIONER

¶56

(BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶57

¶58

AND:

¶59

MR.R.G.PRAKASH, S/O GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO.273, 7TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 73.

¶60

…RESPONDENT

¶61

(BY SRI.S.V.VADAVADAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶62

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2020 PASSED BY THE LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-76), BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.2172/2019 AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 29.08.2019 PASSED BY THE XXVI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.143/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE CHARGE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I. ACT.

¶63

IN CRL. RP No.516/2020:

¶64

BETWEEN:

¶65

SMT.R.KALAI SELVI, W/O THANGAMANI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.315, VIGNESH NILAYA, 6TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 73.

¶66

…PETITIONER

¶67

(BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶68

¶69

AND:

¶70

MR.BHEEMANNA, S/O HANUMEGOUDRU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CIVIL ENGINEER, NO.571, 5TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 73.

¶71

…RESPONDENT

¶72

(BY SRI.S.V.VADAVADAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶73

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2020 PASSED BY THE LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-76) BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.2169/2019 AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 29.08.2019 PASSED BY THE XXVI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.19432/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE CHARGE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I. ACT.

¶74

THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS COMING ON FOR

¶75

ADMISSION ALONG WITH I.A.1/2020 AND 2/2020 THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶76

¶77

ORDER

¶78

Heard Shri Parameshwar N. Hegde, learned counsel for the

¶79

common petitioner in all these cases.

¶80

The petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in all these cases and that she lost all the appeals preferred by her.

¶81

The petitioner admits her signature on all the

¶82

dishonoured cheques. Her specific defence is that she did not borrow money and on the other hand, the cheques issued by her were misused by the respondents. But the Trial Court has given a finding that since the petitioner herself admitted in the insolvency petition No. 9/2016 filed by her in the City Civil Court that she was indebted to many persons including the respondents, and that she owed a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- to the respondents, her defence is improbable and held her guilty of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The findings of the Trial Court has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. On perusal of the Judgment of the Trial Court as well the Appellate

¶83

¶84

Court, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any good ground to admit these revision petitions. The findings on facts cannot be disturbed.

¶85

However, Shri P.N. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was taken to custody for her failure to deposit the money as ordered by the Trial Court. His further submission is that petitioner has been in custody for the last two years serving the default sentence and she may be released from custody extending the benefit under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not think that this submission of Shri P.N. Hegde can be accepted. Section 428 of Cr.P.C. deals with setting off the period spent by an offender in jail.

¶86

The Trial Court has not awarded sentence of

¶87

imprisonment. In all these cases the petitioner has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment in case she defaults in paying the fine amount. Therefore, if she is serving the default sentence, it is always consecutive and therefore, benefit under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. cannot be granted.

¶88

¶89

In the result, I do not find any merit to admit all these

¶90

petitions. Therefore, they are dismissed.

¶91

Consequently, all the pending I.As.1 and 2 of 2020 filed in

¶92

these revision petitions do not survive for consideration and they stand disposed of accordingly.

¶93

SD/JUDGE

¶94

sac*

Smt R Kalai Selvi v. Mr R G Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt R Kalai Selvi v. Mr R G Prakash

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 Papaiah Reddy @ Ashok Reddy Vs Smt Amaravathi

Sri S S Nagesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Bettashetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. R.Kalai Selvi Vs Mr. Bheemanna

Smt R Kalai Selvi Vs Mr. R.G. Prakash

Smt R Kalai Selvi Vs Mr Bheemanna