Dismissed

Sri G Nagaraj v. M/S Surabhi Chits Ltd.

Karnataka HC18 Apr 2022CRL.RP/90/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition challenging the conviction under Section 138 NI Act. The revision was filed regarding alleged improper service of legal notice and unauthorized signature on the cheque. The Court held that service was deemed valid and the lack of defence evidence failed to rebut the statutory presumption.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed; the underlying conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Sri G Nagaraj Vs M/S Surabhi Chits Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.90/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI G. NAGARAJ S/O GUNASHEELAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO 72, A.K.COLONY BSA ROAD, FRAZER TOWN POST BENGALURU-560005. ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI N.SURENDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

M/S. SURABHI CHITS LTD NO.396, 1^ST FLOOR 1^ST MAIN, K.H.M.BLOCK GANGAAGAR BENGALURU-560 032. REPRESENTED BY ITS MARKETING MANAGER AND GPA HOLDER MR. BYRAPPA. ...RESPONDENT

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS AND EXAMINE THE LEGALITY AND PROPRIETARY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-56) IN CRL.A.NO.648/2019 VIDE ORDER DATED 08.10.2021 WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2019 PASSED BY THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XVIII ADDL.C.M.M. AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (SCCH)

¶12

¶13

A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.2962/2018 AND THEREBY ACQUITTED THE PETITIONER.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

¶17

counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

The case of the respondent before the Trial Court is that this petitioner was one of the subscriber of the chit run by the respondent-complainant at their R.T. Nagar branch and he had subscribed to the Chit Group No. RFL-28, TKT No.41-A for a chit value of Rs.5,00,000/- payable at the rate of Rs.10,000/per month for a period of 50 months and the petitioner-accused had also signed the chit agreement at the time of joining the chit. The petitioner was declared as prize bidder in the chit auction held on 15.07.2015 and he had received the amount. Inspite of repeated request and demand, he has not repaid the amount and two persons have also stood as guaranters and on persistent demand, he had issued subject matter cheque for Rs.2,23,000/- and when the said cheque was presented for payment, the same returned with an endorsement ‘funds

¶19

¶20

insufficient’. The respondent-complainant got issued legal notice and he did not give any reply and complaint was filed and thereafter, cognizance was taken and the petitioner was secured before the Trial Court.

¶21

The complainant, in order to prove his case, examined a witness as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P12. On the other hand, the petitioner-accused herein did not choose to lead any defence evidence and only cross-examined P.W.1.

¶22

The Trial Court, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (the ‘N.I. Act’ for short) and directed to pay fine of Rs.2,23,200/and in default to pay the fine amount, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of another two months, apart from simle imprisonment for a period of a six months. Hence, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.648/2019. The Appellate Court also, on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record,

¶23

¶24

dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision is filed before this Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that writings available on the cheque does not belong to the petitioner and both the Courts have not appreciated the said fact. It is the case of the petitioner that, he has repaid all the installment and further the respondent has also admitted whatever the payment made by the petitioner and the same is shown in the statement of chit account at Ex.P12. He would further contend that the amount of Rs.2,23,200/- was covered, however the cheque was not shown in the statement of chit account. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

and also on perusal of the material on record, the fact that this petitioner was the subscriber of the chit is not in dispute and the documents Exs.P2 and P3, chit agreements and Ex.P12statement of chit account are also produced before the Court. It is the contention of the petitioner that no legal notice was served on him but, the respondent-complainant has relied upon the documents at Exs.P9 to P11 i.e., copy of legal notice, postal

¶28

¶29

receipt and the postal acknowledgement and the petitioner also not disputes the address mentioned in the complaint. However, the only contention is that, someone has signed the same. When such being the case, under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, it is deemed to be served on the petitioner. Hence, the first contention of the petitioner no legal notice was served on him cannot be accepted.

¶30

Regarding the other contention that hand writing available on the cheque not belongs to the petitioner, once, the petitioner has given the cheque authorizing the respondentcomplainant to fill up the same with the signature, the contention that hand writing on the cheque does not belong to him cannot be accepted. When the cheque is given in faovur of the respondent-complainant and the petitioner is the subscriber of the chit, there is a presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act and the presumption has to be rebutted under Section 139 of N.I. Act and the presumption is a rebuttal presumption. But, in the case on hand, no defence evidence is adduced by the petitioner herein.

¶31

¶32

When such being the case and there is no effective

¶33

cross-examination of P.W.1 regarding the fact that the petitioner was not the subscriber of the chit and statement of chit account is produced before the Court, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition. Hence, no merits in the revision petition to admit the same.

¶34

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the revision petition, I.A.No.1/2022 does not survive for consideration.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Sri G Nagaraj v. M/S Surabhi Chits Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G Nagaraj v. M/S Surabhi Chits Ltd.

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

Shivakumar B T Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Adilakshmi Vs Mr Ramesh Babu

Sri L Chandrashekar Vs Sri M S Jayaramegowda

Smt. Roopa Shastry @ Rashmi Vs Sri. B.S. Vishwanath

Smt G Vijayakumari Vs Sri G Srinivas

Sri. T. R. Prasad Vs Sri. C. B. Madappa