The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a criminal revision petition filed by an accused appealing her conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonouring a cheque.
The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed.
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 06TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.698 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
R.Geetha, W/o Shivakumar, Aged about 38 years, R/at No.33/3, SK School Road, 6th Cross, Hanumaiah Layout, Kodigehalli, Sahakaranagara Post, Bengaluru-560092.
…Petitioner
(By Sri Annaiah C.V., Advocate)
AND:
Shanthamma, W/o Muniyappa, Aged about 50 years, R/at No.2290, Sanjeevini Nagar Main Road, Sanjeevini Nagar, Sahakaranagara Post, Bengaluru-92.
…Respondent (By Sri R.Shashidhara, Advocate) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and fine imposed by the XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.8346/2016, dated 02.07.2018 and to set aside the order passed by the appellant court in Criminal
:: 2 ::
Appeal No.1468/2018, dated 01.04.2019 passed by the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.67) further be pleased to acquit the petitioner.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for admission through video conferencing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the
respondent’s counsel at the time of admission.
C.C.No.8346/2016 on the file of XVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in a proceeding initiated under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the respondent. The respondent stated in her complaint that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from her to meet her family necessities and agreed to repay the said amount within ten months. Inspite
:: 3 ::
of repeated requests, the petitioner did not repay
it and ultimately she issued a cheque bearing No.992423 dated 13.1.2016 for Rs.2,00,000/-.
The said cheque was not honoured when it was presented before the bank. After issuance of legal notice, the respondent made a complaint to the court of Magistrate for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act.
:: 4 ::
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Out of the fine amount, Rs.2,90,000/- is ordered to be paid to the respondent towards compensation.
:: 5 ::
money for her legal necessities and in that connection she issued a cheque. Entire evidence of PW-1 has not been assailed at all. In fact it has been observed very clearly by the appellate court that the petitioner, in spite of having given several opportunities to cross-examine PW.1, did not avail of it. In these circumstances, the courts are justified in coming to conclusion that the respondent has proved her case. Both the courts below have not committed any infirmity in holding the petitioner guilty of the offence committed under section 138 of N.I.Act. I do not find any good ground to admit this petition. Even the sentence imposed by the trial court is proper and justifiable and therefore this revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
sd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should admit the criminal revision petition to set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R.Geetha
Shanthamma
Sreenivas Harish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
