High Court of Karnataka dismissed the criminal revision petition, upholding the conviction of the petitioner for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding the defence unsupported by documentary evidence.
The revision petition was dismissed; deposit released to respondent; fine balance to be deposited in two months.
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. 261 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 261 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MS. RAMYA R., D/O V. RAJA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT GOVT. SCHOOL ROAD, MUNILAKSHMI NILAYA, OLD BYAPPANHALLI, M.S. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560033.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAIRAJ G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MRS. D. VIJAYA W/O SRI. DHANA GOPAL K AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.63, 4TH CROSS, BEML ROAD, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560075.
(BY SRI. SHASTRI GANAPATI SHRIPAD, ADVOCATE)
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET SIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LVIII ACMM, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.55173/2014 DATED 06.10.2018 AND ALSO JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE XIII
CRL.RP No. 261 of 2022
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE (CCH-22) IN CRL.A.NO.25211/2018 DATED 13.12.2021 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 06.10.2018 passed by the LVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (ACMM - 58) (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.55173/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and consequent sentence to pay fine of Rs.2,75,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioner has also called in question the judgment dated 13.12.2021 passed by the XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH - 22) (henceforth referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.25211/2018 by which, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court was upheld.
CRL.RP No. 261 of 2022
loan of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was given by her on 12.03.2013. The petitioner though promised to repay it by July, 2013, failed to do so. Thereafter, at the instance of the respondent, the petitioner handed over two cheques for Rs.1,00,000/- each dated 25.11.2013 and 02.12.2013 drawn on HDFC bank, Indiranagar branch, Bengaluru, towards repayment of the loan. The said cheques, when presented for encashment, were dishonoured due to insufficient funds on 05.12.2013. The respondent caused notice of demand on 11.12.2013, which was duly served on 12.12.2013. However, the petitioner failed to repay the amount payable under the cheques. The respondent therefore, initiated prosecution of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court registered C.C.No.55173/2014 after the recording the sworn statement of the respondent and issued process. The petitioner appeared and was released on bail. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and prayed that she may be tried. The respondent was examined as PW.1 and she marked documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The statement of the petitioner
CRL.RP No. 261 of 2022
was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and she denied the evidence against her. She was examined as DW.1.
Trial Court held that the signatures found on the cheques at Exs.P1 and P2 were not denied by the petitioner. The Trial Court therefore, drew the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court held that the petitioner failed to prove her defence that in the year 2011, she had borrowed Rs.30,000/- from Sthree Shakthi Sangha and that the respondent being one of the officials of Sangha had deducted Rs.12,000/- and paid Rs.18,000/-. It also held that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent had taken two cheques from the petitioner as security. It also held that the petitioner failed to prove that she had agreed to repay Rs.30,000/- within 30 months and that she repaid it before the year 2013. It further held that the petitioner failed to prove that when she demanded the respondent to return the cheques, the respondent evaded it and had misused it to launch a false prosecution. The Trial Court therefore, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
CRL.RP No. 261 of 2022
the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced her to pay fine of Rs.2,75,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the petitioner filed
Crl.A.No.25211/2018, which was dismissed.
that the cheques in question were not drawn by the petitioner, but were drawn by the respondent herself and the same is evident from the fact that the signature of the petitioner is found in a different ink, while the name of the respondent and the amount and date are in a different ink. He therefore, submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the cheques were blank when it was signed by the petitioner and that they were given as security is probable.
CRL.RP No. 261 of 2022
from Sthree Shakthi Sangha, then the cheques must have been drawn favouring the Sangha and not favouring the respondent. He submitted that it is the petitioner, who had filled up the cheques and had delivered it to the respondent and therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of difference in ink found in the cheques. He submitted that the petitioner did nothing to establish the alleged loan raised from Sthree Shakthi Sangha and therefore, the defence of the petitioner is imaginary and moonshine.
CRL.RP No. 261 of 2022
petitioner to establish a reasonable defence sufficient enough to rebut the presumption whereupon the Court would consider calling upon the respondent to adduce further evidence to establish the transaction between the parties. In the case on hand, though the petitioner claimed that these cheques were given as security at the time of raising a loan of Rs.30,000/from Sthree Shakthi Sangha, no documentary evidence is placed before the Court to establish it. Consequently, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted and the Trial Court was justified in holding that the petitioner was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Further more, if the cheques were given as security to Sthree Shakthi Sangha, then they must have been drawn favouring the Sangha and not in the name of the respondent. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have considered the evidence on record and have rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and have rightly sentenced her to pay fine.
CRL.RP No. 261 of 2022
revision petition and the same is dismissed .
Court as well as the Appellate Court.
Sd/JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is meritorious.
Whether the petitioner's defence that cheques were given as security for a loan was established by evidence.
Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was rebutted.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Ms. Ramya R.
Mrs. D. Vijaya
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
