Dismissed

C N Suresha v. H S Rukmangadha

Karnataka HC30 Aug 2023CRL.RP/325/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition filed under Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour, affirming the lower courts' finding that the accused failed to rebut the legal presumption.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition stands dismissed; the judgment of conviction and sentence of the lower courts is upheld.

C N Suresha Vs H S Rukmangadha — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:31725 CRL.RP No. 325 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 325 OF 2016

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

C.N. SURESHA, S/O H. NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO.5424, RAVINDRA NAGAR, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN-572 112.

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by RENUKAMBA K G

¶10

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

H.S. RUKMANGADHA, S/O SANJEEVAIAH .H.R, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HALASINGAHALLI VILLAGE, KADAGA POST, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-572 112.

¶12

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.N. MADHUSUDAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.10.2012 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT HASSAN IN C.C.NO.319/2005 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 11.11.2015 BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND S.J. AT HASSAN, IN CRL.A.NO.151/2012 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT ON THE GROUND OF NON REBUTTAL BY THE APPELLANT AND NO ACTION TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT FOR RECEIVING BACK THE CHEQUE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE. AND PASS AN ORDER OF ACQUITTAL, ACQUITTING

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:31725 CRL.RP No. 325 of 2016

¶16

THE PETITIONER HEREIN OF THE CHARGE LEVELLED AGAINST HIM.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Civil Judge J.M.F.C., Hassan, in C.C.No.319/2005 vide judgment dated 20.10.2012 and confirmed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Crl.A.No.151/2012 vide judgment dated 11.11.2015.

¶20

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

¶21

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the complainant and accused are friends and on 13.12.2003, the accused approached the complainant for hand loan of Rs.2,25,000/- to meet his exigencies and complainant advanced a hand loan on 23.12.2003. On the same day accused issued a cheque dated 23.01.2004

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:31725 CRL.RP No. 325 of 2016

¶23

stating that the cheque will be honoured and when the cheque was presented, it was returned with an endorsement that account was closed. Thereafter, the complainant has issued a legal notice to the accused and accused in spite of service, did not repay the cheque amount and hence, the complaint came to be lodged.

¶24

The learned magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and issued process against the accused. Accused has appeared through his counsel and was enlarged on bail. He has also denied the accusation.

¶25

The complainant has got examined himself as PW1 and he placed reliance on Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Thereafter the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of the complainant. The case of the accused is of total denial.

¶26

Accused has also got examined himself as DW1 and one witness was examined on his behalf as DW2. After hearing the arguments and after appreciating the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:31725 CRL.RP No. 325 of 2016

¶29

oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused by imposing the sentence of fine of Rs.2,30,000/- with a default clause.

¶30

Against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has approached III Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan in Crl.A.No.151/2012 and the learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal. Against these concurrent findings, this revision is filed.

¶31

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

¶32

counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶34

contend that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and have given much importance to receipt of Rs.40,000/- and drawn presumption in favour of the complainant which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He would also contend that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence of DW1, regarding repayment of Rs.40,000/- and

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:31725 CRL.RP No. 325 of 2016

¶36

hence, he would contend that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are not sustainable. As such, he would seek for allowing the revision petition.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would support the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. He would contend that this cheque and signature on the cheque have been admitted and accused has set up defence that he has only availed a loan of Rs.40,000/- and repaid it, but to substantiate his defence, he has not produced any material evidence and hence, he would seek for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶38

It is undisputed fact that the cheque Ex.P1 belongs to the account of the accused and it bears his signature. The accused has set up defence that about eight years back he has taken Rs.40,000/from complainant and Ex.P1 was given to complainant as a security and about four years back he has repaid the said amount. By leading evidence the accused has virtually admitted the financial transaction and the initial presumption is in favour of the complainant under Section

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:31725 CRL.RP No. 325 of 2016

¶40

139 of the N.I. Act and accused is required to rebut the said presumption

¶41

When accused is taking specific contention that he has issued cheques as a security for Rs.40,000/- loan and he has repaid it, the burden is on him to substantiate his contention. The accused tried to rely on the evidence of DW2, but his evidence again disclose that Rs.40,000/is paid but to substantiate the same no material evidence is placed on record and in his 313 statement, no such defence is forthcoming. The accused has not rebutted the presumption and when he admits the issuance of cheque as a security, in view of the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act ,it has to be presumed that cheque is issued towards legally enforceable debt and burden shifts on accused to rebut the same. But except formal assertion, the accused has not lead any material cogent acceptable evidence. He has not even bothered to issue reply notice to the complainant in this regard.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:31725 CRL.RP No. 325 of 2016

¶44

Both the Courts below have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and have rightly convicted the accused. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the courts below does not suffer from perversity so as to call for any interference. As such, the revision petition being devoid of merits, does not survive for consideration and accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed .

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

C N Suresha v. H S Rukmangadha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C N Suresha v. H S Rukmangadha

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

Narasimharaju H Vs R. Govindegowda

Sri. Basavaraju B Gundenahalli Vs Yogesh H.L.

Mr Annu Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt R Uma Shivaramaiah Vs Smt S H Leelavathi

Sri Pyaru @ Mahamad Ibrahim Vs State of Karnataka

Kumar @ Giri Vs State of Karnataka