Dismissed

Sri B P Rajesh v. Sri K Narayana Reddy

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2023CRL.RP/516/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act. The court upheld findings that the accused admitted loan liability and issued post-dated cheques which were dishonoured, finding no merit in the revision.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; any deposit amount released to respondent; records returned to Trial and Appellate Courts.

Sri B P Rajesh Vs Sri K Narayana Reddy — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 516 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 516 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. B.P. RAJESH S/O B.R. PANDURANGA GUPTA AGED 53 YEARS R/AT NO.203, 1^ST FLOOR 21^ST MAIN, SHAMANNA GARDEN, J.P. NAGAR, 5^TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560078

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. K. NARAYANA REDDY S/O KANAPPA REDDY, AGED 61 YEARS, R/A NO.1541/78, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, KATHRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560085.

¶14

(BY SRI. R.B.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶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 JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 21.01.2019 PASSED BY THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN DISMISSING THE CRL.A.NO.1203/2017 AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 28.07.2017 PASSED BY THE XVI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.27673/2015 AND ALLOW THE PETITION BY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED IN THE ABOVE CASE.

¶17

¶18

CRL.RP No. 516 of 2019

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 28.07.2017 passed by the XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.27673/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and consequent sentence to pay fine of Rs.97,00,000/-. The petitioner has also called in question the judgment dated 21.01.2019 passed by the LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH - 69) (henceforth referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.1203/2017 by which, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court was upheld.

¶22

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they

¶23

were arraigned before the Trial Court. The petitioner was the accused and the respondent was the complainant.

¶24

The records of the Trial Court disclose that the complainant had agreed to advance a loan of Rs.80,00,000/- to

¶25

¶26

CRL.RP No. 516 of 2019

¶27

the accused. As the first installment, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- by way of cheque and cash and towards security the accused executed a sale agreement dated 25.04.2014 in respect of 3.03 acres of agricultural land situate at Doddamannu Gudde Village, Kasaba Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk. In respect of the remaining sum of Rs.40,00,000/-, the said sum was paid by cash and towards repayment of the said amount of Rs.40,00,000/-, the accused issued two postdated cheques for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- each. The complainant claimed that it was agreed between him and accused that after the entire amount of Rs.80,00,000/- was repaid with interest of Rs.16,00,000/-, the sale agreement dated 25.04.2014 would be cancelled. The complainant alleged that when he approached the accused during February, 2015, he requested for more time to repay the entire loan amount with interest. The accused is stated to have collected back the two cheques for Rs.20,00,000/- each and replaced the same with 8 cheques for Rs.10,00,000/- each. He also issued two post dated cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- towards interest. Those cheques were dishonoured when presented for encashment due to insufficient funds, which prompted the complainant to initiate

¶28

¶29

CRL.RP No. 516 of 2019

¶30

prosecution of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The notice issued by the complainant was served on the accused, who replied untenably and refused to pay the amount payable under the cheques in question. The complainant therefore, launched prosecution of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶31

The Trial Court recorded the pre-summons evidence of the complainant and registered C.C.No.27673/2015 and issued process to the accused. The accused appeared and was released on bail. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant was examined as PW.1 and he marked Exs.P1 to P33. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., who denied the evidence appearing against him, but did not lead any evidence in defence.

¶32

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the accused admitted Ex.P2, which was a letter of commitment executed by him in favour of the complainant, wherein he categorically admitted about the hand loan of Rs.80,00,000/- raised from the complainant. It also

¶33

5 - CRL.RP No. 516 of 2019

¶34

held that payment of Rs.80,00,000/- was reflected in the income tax returns of the complainant and the pass book of the complainant established the payments made to the accused. It also perused Ex.P1, which was a sale agreement executed by the accused in favour of the complainant and held that the cheques in question were drawn by the accused towards repayment of the debt. The Trial Court drew presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and held that the accused did not rebut the presumption by a plausible defence and therefore, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.97,00,000/-.

¶35

Being aggrieved by the same, the accused filed Crl.A.No.1203/2017. The Appellate Court secured the records of the Trial Court, heard the counsel for the parties and after reappreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

¶36

Being aggrieved by the judgments of the Trial Court

¶37

and the Appellate Court, the present revision petition is filed.

¶38

6 - CRL.RP No. 516 of 2019

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- was paid by the complainant for the purpose of using it for deletion of the land belonging to the complainant, bearing Sy.Nos.101/1 and 82/4 situate at Thanisandra and Rachenahalli Village, Bengaluru, which was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of formation of the Arkavathi Layout. He submitted that the accused had used up this funds on the instructions of the complainant and therefore, there was no corresponding liability to return the money to the complainant. Further, he submitted that there was no agreement to pay interest and the complainant clearly mentioned in his complaint that a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- claimed by the complainant was towards interest. Further, he submitted that the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was replied, which set out the defence of the accused. He submitted that the amount of Rs.80,00,000/- was not the principal amount but a large part of it was towards interest and therefore, the cheques cannot be construed as drawn towards payment of lawful debt.

¶40

Per contra, the learned counsel for the

¶41

respondent/complainant submitted that the accused had

¶42

¶43

CRL.RP No. 516 of 2019

¶44

admitted his liability to an extent of Rs.80,00,000/- in terms of Ex.P2. He had also passed on two cheques for a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- being the amount payable towards interest. He submitted that signature of the accused on the cheques in question was not disputed and it was undisputed that the cheques were drawn from his account. Therefore, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were justified in drawing presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He contended that the bank pass book clearly indicated the amounts paid to the accused, which clearly probablised the fact that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- as hand loan to the accused and that the accused towards repayment of the said amount along with interest had drawn the cheques in question.

¶45

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant. I have also perused the records of the Trial Court, its judgment as well as the judgment of the Appellate Court.

¶46

8 - CRL.RP No. 516 of 2019

¶47

The fact that the accused had executed an agreement of sale in favour of the complainant as per Ex.P1 is not seriously contested. The complainant claimed that this agreement was executed as security for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- that was initially paid by him to the accused. Subsequent to the agreement dated 25.04.2014 (Ex.P1), various other payments were made by the complainant to the accused, which is evidenced from Ex.P33 - bank pass book. The income tax returns filed by the complainant as per Exs.P28 to P30 also indicate that the complainant had disclosed these amounts as payable or as receivable from the accused. In the letter of commitment issued by the accused as per Ex.P2, he had categorically admitted that he had raised a loan of Rs.80,00,000/- and he was liable to repay the same.

¶48

In that view of the matter, since the Trial Court was expected to summarily try the case and in view of the corroborative material placed on record indicating the transaction as well as the liability of the accused, the judgment of the Trial Court does not warrant interference. Similarly, the judgment of the Appellate Court also does not warrant interference.

¶49

9 - CRL.RP No. 516 of 2019

¶50

Hence, this revision petition lacks merit and is

¶51

dismissed .

¶52

Any amount in deposit before this Court/Trial

¶53

Court/Appellate Court shall be released to the respondent.

¶54

The Registry is directed to forthwith return the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court records.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

PMR

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Sri B P Rajesh v. Sri K Narayana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B P Rajesh v. Sri K Narayana Reddy

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

Ramu Vs Deputy Commissioner

Fareed Vs the State of Karnataka

Surendrababu Vs M C Ramesh

Smt. Meenakumari Vs Smt. Ashwini. B. S.

Sri Harish Vasudev Kittali Vs Sri Deepak B

T.Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka