Dismissed

Sri. R. Kantharaja v. Sri. P. Nagaraja

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2023CRL.RP/461/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of the NI Act. The court upheld the lower courts' finding that the petitioner failed to establish a defense regarding the lawful debt and maintained the fine. The court directed the trial court to consider prior payments during sentence execution.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to consider payments made by petitioner before execution of sentence.

Sri. R. Kantharaja Vs Sri. P. Nagaraja — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 461 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 461 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. R. KANTHARAJA S/O. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PARASHURAMPURA VILLAGE, NEAR SARVODAYA COLLEGE, PAVAGADA ROAD, CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. P. NAGARAJA S/O. PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST & CONTRACTOR, RESIDENT OF SIDESHWARANADURGA, PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALKUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 536.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. H.G.SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, IN CRL.A.NO.64/2018 AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

CRL.RP No. 461 of 2019

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has challenged the concurrent judgment of conviction and sentencing the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act, 1881' for short) and to pay a fine of Rs.4,55,000/-.

¶22

The facts as stated in brief are that the respondent and the petitioner were known to each other and that, on the request of the petitioner, the respondent had advanced a loan of Rs.4,50,000/-. The petitioner had passed on a cheque dated 20.07.2015 towards the repayment of the said loan. However, the cheque on presentation was dishonoured as the petitioner had stopped the payment of the cheque on 08.09.2015. The respondent caused a notice of demand, which was not complied by the petitioner, which compelled the respondent to initiate proceedings for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881. The sworn statement of the petitioner was recorded and the case was registered as C.C.No.1075/2015. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and prayed that he be tried. The respondent was examined as PW.1 and marked Ex.P1 to

¶23

¶24

CRL.RP No. 461 of 2019

¶25

P5. Later, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the petitioner did not enter the witness box and did not produce any material documents. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner towards discharge of a lawful debt and that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 in view of the dishonour of the cheque. The trial Court therefore convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.4,55,000/-, of which, Rs.4,50,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.64/2018, which too was dismissed.

¶26

Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition

¶27

is filed.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute between the parties was referred to Mediation, whereat the parties have resolved to settle the dispute at a

¶29

¶30

CRL.RP No. 461 of 2019

¶31

sum of Rs.3,15,000/-. Learned counsel therefore contended that the petitioner be granted adequate time to pay Rs.3,15,000/-. He also submits that during the pendency of the suit, he had deposited a sum of Rs.95,000/- before the trial Court, which was acknowledged by the respondent and that he had deposited a sum of Rs.80,000/- before the Appellate Court. He therefore submits that the amount paid by the petitioner before the trial Court and the Appellate Court was not considered.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that though the parties had settled the dispute at Rs.3,15,000/-, the petitioner was not keen to abide by the settlement and therefore, the respondent is no longer interested to stick to the said settlement. He however contended that there is no evidence to establish that the petitioner had either paid up the amount payable under the cheque in question. He contended that the petitioner did not establish that the cheque in question was not issued towards the discharge of a lawful debt.

¶33

¶34

CRL.RP No. 461 of 2019

¶35

I have considered the submission made by the

¶36

learned counsel for the parties.

¶37

It is evident from the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that the petitioner did not choose to set out his defense. He also did not enter the witness box to establish any of his contention that the cheque in question was not issued towards discharge of a lawful debt.

¶38

In that view of the matter, the trial Court and the Appellate Court have rightly considered the evidence on record and have held that the petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and had rightly sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.4,55,000/-. There is no error either in the appreciation of evidence or the application of law to the facts and circumstances of this case warranting interference under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶39

Hence, this revision petition lacks merit and dismissed .

¶40

¶41

CRL.RP No. 461 of 2019

¶42

The trial Court may consider the payments made before it

¶43

as well as before the Appellate Court, while executing the order

¶44

of sentence.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Sri. R. Kantharaja v. Sri. P. Nagaraja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. R. Kantharaja v. Sri. P. Nagaraja

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

Naga Vs State of Karnataka

Mahadevaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Raghuram Vs M/S S S Enterprises

Sri Mahesh Kumar Vs State by

Manjunatha a Vs Smt M Shruthi

Muthoot Finance Limited Vs State of Karnataka