High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act. The Court held the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of guilt, finding his defence unproved and evidence concocted.
Criminal Revision Petition dismissed. Fee of Amicus Curiae fixed at Rs. 7,500/-.
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. 67 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRL.R.P. NO. 67 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
MURALI S/O MELEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT EMPLOYEE OF BSNL BINDIGANAVILE BRANCH, BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY MR. H. MALATESH, AMICUS CURIEA)
Digitally signed by B A KRISHNA KUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka
AND:
B.V. RAVIKUMAR S/O VENKATESH K AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/A BADRI KOPPAL VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.N. MADHAVAREDDY., ADV.)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:6.07.12 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAGAMANGALA IN C.C.NO.624/10 AND ALSO JUDGMENT DATED:16.11.13 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., MANDYA IN CRL.A.NO.74/12.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.RP No. 67 of 2014
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 06.07.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala (for short the 'Trial Court') in C.C.No.624/2010 and the judgment and order dated 16.11.2013 passed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya (for short the 'Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.74/2012.
complainant for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. On presentation of said cheque for realization the same was dishonoured on the ground "Funds insufficient". On receipt of such a bank memo, the complainant had got issued a legal notice to the accused. The said notice dated 21.10.2008 was served on the petitioner on 31.10.2008. In spite of such notice, the petitioner did not pay the amount nor did he reply to the said notice. It is under this circumstance, the respondent - complainant had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') and in the said proceedings, after service of summons, the petitioner had entered appearance and claimed to be tried.
CRL.RP No. 67 of 2014
imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay fine of Rs.2,75,000/- and in default to pay fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple Imprisonment for further period of three months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner had filed Crl.A.No.74/2012 before the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya and the said appeal was dismissed on 16.11.2013. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court in this criminal revision petition.
CRL.RP No. 67 of 2014
failed to rebut the presumption arising him. He submits that the signature found in the cheque and handwriting found in the cheque have not been disputed by the petitioner and he also submits that Ex.D1 does not have signature of the complainant and accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
CRL.RP No. 67 of 2014
that during pendency of the trial, the entire payment that was due by Smt. Lakshmi to the respondent was paid under Ex.D1 and in spite of the same, the cheque in question was misused by the respondent. A perusal of Ex.D1 would go to show that in the said document signature of the respondent is in Kannada. Whereas the respondent has throughout signed before the Trial Court on all documents including the complaint as well as the deposition in English and the handwriting found in Ex.D1 also prima-facie does not appears to be of the respondent.
CRL.RP No. 67 of 2014
Courts below holding the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The petitioner has not been able to establish before this Court that the impugned judgment and order is either perverse or illegal and therefore, interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is not called for. Accordingly, I pass the following:-
::ORDER::
Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
The service of Sri H. Malatesh. who was appointed as Amicus Curiae is appreciated and placed on record and the fee of Amicus Curiae is fixed as Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only).
SD/JUDGE
NMS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are perverse or illegal warranting interference by this Court.
Whether the petitioner successfully rebutted the presumption of guilty under Section 138 by proving the cheque was misused.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Murali
B.V. Ravikumar
S. Vishvajith Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
