Dismissed

Sri.Krishnamraju.Y v. Sri.Shanthappa Raju

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2023CRL.RP/255/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition filed to set aside convictions and sentences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court held that the lower courts were justified in drawing statutory presumptions as the accused failed to substantiate his defense.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed. Any amount in deposit is released in favour of the respondent.

Sri.Krishnamraju.Y Vs Sri.Shanthappa Raju — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 255 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 255 OF 2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. KRISHNAMRAJU. Y., S/O. LATE YELLAPPA RAJU, AGED ABOUT: 54 YEARS, R/AT: NO.3126, SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 4TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALU MAHENDRA Y.H, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SRI.SHANTHAPPA RAJU, S/O. CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 51 YEARS, Digitally signed by R/AT: NO.117, 2ND CROSS, SUMA 1ST MAIN ROAD, Location: HIGH KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, COURT OF BANGALORE - 560019. KARNATAKA

¶11

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. J. B. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 OF THE CR.P.C., 1973 PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED: 3.7.13 PASSED BY THE XII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.4148/10 CONVICTING THE PETR. U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT, BY SENTENCING THE PETR. TO PAY A FINE OF

¶13

¶14

CRL.RP No. 255 of 2014

¶15

RS.3,25,000/(RUPEES THREE LAKHS TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND ONLY) AND IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR THREE MONTHS AND IN THE TOTAL FINE AMOUNT SUM OF RS.3,00,000/- IS ORDERED TO BE PAID TO THE COMPLAINANT AS COMPENSATION. AND (b) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED:17.3.14 IN CRL.A.NO.380/13 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-IV, BANGALORE AND PRAYS THAT, HE BE ACQUITTED OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND ETC.,

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 03.07.2013 passed by the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (Henceforth be referred as Tribunal Court) in C.C.No.4148/2010, by which, the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act, 1881' for short) and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,25,000/-. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 17.03.2014 passed by City Fast Track-IV, Bangalore City (Henceforth be referred as Appellate Court) in Crl.A.No.380/2013, by which the judgment of the trial Court was upheld.

¶19

3 - CRL.RP No. 255 of 2014

¶20

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they

¶21

were arraigned before the trial Court. The petitioner was the accused.

¶22

The counsel for the petitioner was absent. However, the learned Amicus Curiae who was present submits that the counsel for the petitioner informed her that he would represent the petitioner in the case. However the learned counsel was not present, though the petition was called twice in the day. Hence, the petition is taken up for disposal based on the available material.

¶23

The records disclose that the complainant and the accused were known to each other for several years. The accused requested the complainant in February 2009 for financial help of Rs.2,00,000/- for his business and to meet his family necessities. The complainant realizing the need of the accused, lent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The accused had promised to repay the loan within six months. After six months when the complainant demanded the accused to return the loan, a cheque bearing No.023659 drawn on 'State Bank of Mysore', Bangalore for Rs.2,00,000/- was drawn by the

¶24

4 - CRL.RP No. 255 of 2014

¶25

accused favoring the complainant. However, the cheque when presented was dishonored as the account was closed by the accused. The dishonor of the cheque was informed to the accused who expressed his inability to arrange the funds. The complainant therefore caused a notice of demand dated 24.08.2009 which was sent to the accused by RPAD and certificate of posting. The notices issued to the accused were served. However, he replied to the notice on 02.09.2009 denying the liability and claimed that the accused had sought for financial assistance of Rs.25,000/- to meet the marriage expenses of his daughter and that the complainant had paid the said sum of Rs.25,000/- on interest at 3% p.m. and for the said loan, the accused had parted with two blank cheques which was to be retained as security. He also contended that during January-2009, the accused had repaid the said sum of Rs.25,000/- along with interest and when he demanded the complainant to return the cheques, the complainant claimed that the cheques were misplaced. The complainant therefore initiated prosecution of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881. The Trial Court recorded the pre-summons evidence of the complainant and registered

¶26

¶27

CRL.RP No. 255 of 2014

¶28

C.C.No.4148/2010 and issued process to the accused. The accused appeared and was released on bail. The substance of the accusation was read over to the accused who denied it claimed to be tried.

¶29

The complainant was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and he denied the incriminating evidence against him. He was examined as DW.1 and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the accused had admitted the signatures found on the cheque in question and also that it was drawn from his account. It held that the accused was unable to establish that he had given the cheque to secure the hand loan of Rs.25,000/- raised by him from the complainant. It also held that the accused did not establish the repayment of a sum of Rs.25,000/- that he had allegedly raised from the complainant. The Trial Court drew the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act, 1881 and held that the complainant had proved that the accused committed an offence and hence, convicted him for the said offence and sentenced

¶30

¶31

CRL.RP No. 255 of 2014

¶32

him to pay fine of Rs.3,25,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused filed Crl.A.No.380/2013. The Appellate Court secured the records of

¶33

the trial Court, heard the counsel for the parties and framed points for consideration and after re-appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accused did not establish his defence and did not establish that he had repaid a sum of Rs.25,000/that he had allegedly raised from the complainant and therefore, dismissed the appeal.

¶34

Being aggrieved by the judgment of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed.

¶35

It is contended in the revision petition that an offence under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 is not attracted when the cheque in question was dishonoured on the ground that the account was closed. It is further stated that the accused was a businessman and therefore, there was no need for him to raise a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant. The complainant had claimed that he had received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from a person named Manjunath and that the complainant failed to examine the said Manjunath before the Court to prove that he

¶36

¶37

CRL.RP No. 255 of 2014

¶38

had Rs.2,00,000/- in his hands to lend it to the accused. It is further claimed that the complainant had admitted in his crossexamination that the cheque in question was given by the accused on the date of the loan itself. However, in the complaint, it was mentioned that the cheque was given after six months from the date of the accused receiving a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant. Similar such grounds are urged stating that the evidence on record did not establish the transaction between the accused and the complainant.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondent is absent and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submissions.

¶40

I have perused the records of the trial Court and

¶41

also its judgment as well as the judgment of the Appellate Court.

¶42

The reply issued by the accused clearly discloses that the accused admitted that the cheque in question was drawn favouring the complainant which was to be retained as security for a hand loan of Rs.25,000/- raised by him from the

¶43

¶44

CRL.RP No. 255 of 2014

¶45

complainant. Therefore, the accused had expressly admitted that the signatures found on the cheque in question was affixed by him and that the cheque was drawn from his account. The trial Court and the Appellate Court were therefore justified in drawing a presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act, 1881. The accused did not establish his defence that the cheque in question was given as security for the hand loan of Rs.25,000/- raised by the accused from the complainant. Exs.D1 and D2 did not demonstrate that any payments were made by the accused to the complainant. On the other hand, Ex.D1 is supposedly a cheque drawn by a person named A. Katherine who had nothing to do with the case on hand. Ex.D2 is purportedly the photocopy of two blank cheques bearing Nos.023658 and 023659, which also are of no consequence and does not aid the accused in establishing his defence as the cheque in question is duly drawn up but was dishonoured as the account was closed by the accused.

¶46

The trial Court and the Appellate Court were therefore justified in convicting the accused under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881. There is no error apparent on the face of the

¶47

¶48

CRL.RP No. 255 of 2014

¶49

record warranting interference by this Court in a revision petition. Hence, this revision petition lacks merits and is dismissed .

¶50

Any amount in deposit before the trial Court or the Appellate Court or before this Court shall be released in favour of the respondent.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

PK/NR

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri.Krishnamraju.Y v. Sri.Shanthappa Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Krishnamraju.Y v. Sri.Shanthappa Raju

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

Mr Nagendra Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Anil Kumar M K Vs Smt Yogamani

Sri. M.V. Krishnappa @ M.V. Krishna Vs Sri. B. Krishnamurthy Acharya

Inayathulla Vs the State by Bagepalli Police Station

Sri. Kodlu Ramakrishna Vs Sri. v Srinath

Sri Mohammed Hafeez Vs the State of Karnataka