High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 NI Act. The Court held the lower courts properly appreciated evidence regarding the dishonoured cheque and the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
Revision petition dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 564 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
S.B. VISHWANATH, S/O. LATE BASANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, GURAPPA COMPOUND, GAREHATTI, CHITRADURGA - 572 143.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR G. BAGOJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by RENUKAMBA K G Location: High Court of Karnataka
PRABHUDEV G., S/O. LATE D. GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.474, RAMAIAH ENCLAVE, 11TH MAIN, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU - 560 073.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVI L. VAIDYA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 24.01.2015 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER F.T.C-XIII COURT, BANGALORE CITY IN CRL.A.NO.293/2014 CONFIRMING
NC: 2023:KHC:29441 CRL.RP No. 564 of 2016
THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2014 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XII ACMM, BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.9220/2010 AND ACQUIT THE PETR. FORM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE AND ALLOW THIS R.P.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision is filed by the revision
petitioner/accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, Bengaluru in C.C. No.9220/2010 dated 21.03.2014 and confirmed by the XIII Fast Track Court, Bengaluru City in Criminal Appeal No.293/2014 dated 24.01.2015.
that the complainant is the owner of Tata Oil Tanker bearing No. KA 27-7722 and on 15.04.2008, the accused has taken the Tanker on lease under oral agreement and later on 29.08.2008, the written agreement was entered.
It is further asserted that as per the agreement of Rs.59,000/- was paid by the accused to Sri Ram Chits and Finance Company and accused was required to clear the loan of Sri Ram Chits and Finance Company. On failure to do so, he is responsible for all the losses. It is alleged that as on 11.05.2009, accused was required to pay sum of Rs.6,87,000/- and out of which, only Rs.59,000/- was paid and when said amount was demanded, the accused has issued cheque dated 05.08.2009 for Rs.6,28,000/-. When the said cheque was presented, it was dishonoured for insufficient funds. Thereafter, the complainant has got issued legal notice and the accused has refused the said notice and hence, complaint came to be lodged.
NC: 2023:KHC:29441 CRL.RP No. 564 of 2016
against the accused and issued process. The accused has appeared through his counsel and was enlarged on bail. He has also denied the accusation made against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act' for short). The complainant was got examined himself as PW.1 and he has placed reliance on 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. After conclusion of evidence of the complainant, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable him to explain the incriminatory evidence appearing against him in the case of the complainant. The case of the accused is of total denial. However, he himself got examined as DW.1.
NC: 2023:KHC:29441 CRL.RP No. 564 of 2016
and order of sentence, the accused has approached the XIII Fast Track Court, Bengaluru City in Criminal Appeal No.293/2014 and the learned Sessions Judge after reappreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. Against these concurrent findings, the accused is before this Court by way of this revision.
counsel for the revision petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent. Perused the records.
enforceable debt as per Ex.P1. Hence, he would contend that both the Courts below have committed an error in convicting the accused. Hence, he would seek for allowing the revision by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed the both the Courts below.
Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge are perverse, arbitrary and erroneous so as to call for any interference in this revision by this court?
that he is the owner of the Tanker bearing No.27-7722 and on 15.4.2009, accused has taken tanker on rent agreeing to pay the installments of loan to the Sri Ram Finance Company and subsequently, the written
agreement was also entered in this regard. It is specific assertion by the complainant that as per the Clause of the agreement, the accused is liable to pay all the losses incurred by the complainant but did not repay the loan amount as agreed. Hence, he asserts that he has suffered loss to tune of Rs.6,87,000/- and out of it, the accused
has paid only Rs.59,000/- by depositing to Sri Ram Finance Company and when the balance was demanded by the complainant, the disputed cheque came to be issued for Rs.6,28,000/-. The complainant further asserted that the cheque when presented for encashment, it dishonored and legal notice was refused by the accused.
have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and have rightly convicted the accused. The defence raised by the accused is not probable. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the both the Courts below does not suffer from any perversity so as to call for any interference by this Court. As such, the point for consideration is answered in the negative . As such, the revision fails. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
ii. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.9220/2010 dated 21.03.2014 and confirmed by the XIII Fast Track Court, Bengaluru City in Criminal Appeal No.293/2014 dated 24.01.2015 are hereby confirmed .
NC: 2023:KHC:29441 CRL.RP No. 564 of 2016
iii. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Trial Court for payment to the complainant.
Sd/JUDGE
KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 Ct: THK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the lower courts are perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous so as to call for interference?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.B. Vishwanath
Prabhudev G.
Rajendra Badamikar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
