High Court of Karnataka criminal revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 NI Act. Court found no illegality in impugned judgment and dismissed petition, awarding cost amount.
Petitioner ordered to pay the statutory cost.
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.
CRL.RP No. 1436 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1436 OF 2018
Between:
Sri K.B.Ananda S/o. Late Sri Basavaiah, Aged about 59 years, R/at No. 327, 3rd Main Road, A and B Block, Ramakrishnanagara, Mysuru-570006.
…Petitioner
(By Sri V.R.Balaraj, Advocate)
And:
Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Sri K.S.Nagaraju S/o. Sri K.C.Somegowda, Aged about 48 years, R/at No. 621, 7th Cross, Anikethana Road, Kuvempunagara, Mysuru-570006.
…Respondent
(By Sri Narendra D.V. Gowda, Advocate)
This Crl.RP. filed u/s.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Learned III-JMFC, Mysuru in C.C.No.948/2015 produced at Annexure-A and the judgment dated 07.11.2018 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Crl.A.No.137/2018 produced at Annexure-B.
This petition coming on for dictating orders, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
This criminal revision petition under section 397 Cr.P.C. is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the court of JMFC (III Court), Mysuru in C.C.No.948/2015 dated 8.6.2018 and the judgment and order dated 7.11.2018 passed by the Court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Crl.A.No.137/2018.
The complainant had filed a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, (III Court), Mysuru against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act contending that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and a sum of Rs.4 lakhs respectively from
the complainant for the purpose of his family necessities and he had agreed to repay the same with interest. The petitioner had thereafter issued two cheques dated 2.12.2014 and 10.12.2014 respectively for a sum of Rs.6,72,500/and Rs.4,66,000/in favour of the respondent-complainant towards repayment of the loan
amount borrowed by him. The said cheques on presentation for realization were dishonoured with the banker’s endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. After receipt of said bankers endorsement, the respondent – complainant got issued a statutory notice to the petitioner
through RPAD, which was not claimed by the petitioner. Thereafter the respondent had filed a private complaint before the trial court.
CRL.RP No. 1436 of 2018
circumstances available against him during the course of his section 313 Cr.P.C. statement. However he did not lead any defence evidence nor did he get any documents marked in support of his defence.
courts below are not justified in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act . He submits that the cheques in question were issued towards security and the petitioner was not liable to pay any amount to the respondent which was illegally recovarable from him. He submits that even if the issuance of cheques is admitted, the fact remains that the petitioner is not due to pay the respondent the amount covered under the cheques and therefore the court were not justified in convicting the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order and prays to dismiss the petition.
cheques to the respondent. He has also not disputed the writing and the signature on the cheques. Therefore in view of section 139 of N.I.Act, presumption arises as against the petitioner that the cheques in question are issued by him towards discharge of legally recoverable
debt. Unless the petitioner rebuts the said presumption, he is liable to be convicted for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act. The petitioner has taken multiple defence before the trial court. However he has failed to prove any one of his defence as probable. He has also denied that he had borrowed money from the respondent. The respondent by producing Ex.P.9 and P.11 had proved that he has lent money to the petitioner as alleged by him in the complaint. Further by producing Ex.P.9 to P.13, the respondent has shown his capacity to lend the amount. The respondent has produced the two cheques issued by the petitioner in his favour and he has also produced the copy of the legal notice issued by him in compliance of the statutory requirements. The petitioner has also produced his income tax returns and bank pass book in addition to the aforesaid documents in support of his case.
against the petitioner and unless only the petitioner is able to demonstrate before this court that such a finding recorded by the courts below are either perverse or illegal, the same cannot be interfered with by this court in exercise of its revisional powers. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the courts below and therefore I find no merit in this revision petition. Accordingly the same is dismissed.
The amount in deposit, if any, is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent/complainant.
Sd/JUDGE
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
SD
1 issue framed by the court
Whether courts below committed any illegality or irregularity in convicting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri K.B.Ananda
Sri K.S.Nagaraju
S.VishwaJith Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
