Partly allowed

Sri Govind v. Jathar v Smt C Radha

Karnataka HC16 Aug 2023CRL.RP/709/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed the conviction for cheque dishonor but was satisfied with the sentence modification. It set aside the imprisonment and enhanced the compensation to a fine of Rs. 1.25 lakh, to be served as compensation.

What did the court decide?

The conviction confirmed; sentence of imprisonment set aside; compensation of Rs. 1.20 lakh converted into fine of Rs. 1.25 lakh (simple imprisonment of 3 months in default).

Sri Govind v Jathar Vs Smt C Radha — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:29464 CRL.RP No. 709 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 709 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. GOVIND .V JATHAR, S/O LATE VIBHAKAR JATHAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SRI. GANESH TRADERS, NO.B-91, 1^ST STAGE, 2^ND CROSS, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BANGALORE-560 058.

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIVATSA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by RENUKAMBA K G

¶11

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. C. RADHA W/O SRI. C. L. VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.31, R.V. LAYOUT, K.P. WEST, BANGALORE-560 020, REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER, SRI. B.R. VENAKTESH, S/O SRI. B.V. RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAMADAGNI .P.S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.03.2019, PASSED BY THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CCH-61 IN CRI.A.NO.1216/2017 AND THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2017 IN C.C.NO.23843/2016 FROM THE FILE OF THE COURT OF XV A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU AND

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:29464 CRL.RP No. 709 of 2019

¶17

CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I ACT.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the XV ACMM, Bangalore City in C.C.No.23843/2016 dated 01.08.2017 and confirmed by LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Crl.A.No.1216/2017 vide judgment dated 05.03.2019.

¶21

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

¶22

referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

¶23

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as

¶24

under:

¶25

The accused and complainant are known to each other since many years and accused is running a business. The accused has approached the complainant for a hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/- for the purpose of business necessity and complainant advanced the said loan through cheque. Further to

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:29464 CRL.RP No. 709 of 2019

¶27

refund the amount, the accused has issued ten cheques of Rs.40,000/- each and out of ten cheques, six cheques were honoured and four cheques were dishonoured for insufficient funds. After issuance of notice, since there was no response, the complaint came to be lodged.

¶28

The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued process and the accused has appeared through his counsel and was enlarged on bail. He denied the accusation. The complainant was got examined himself as PW1 and he placed reliance on sixteen documents as per Exs.P1 to P16. Thereafter, the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and case of accused is of total denial. He has also got examined himself as DW1.

¶29

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, now the following point would arise for my consideration:

¶30

“Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the first appellate Court are perverse, erroneous and arbitrary so as to call for any interference by this Court?”

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:29464 CRL.RP No. 709 of 2019

¶32

It is the specific case of the complainant that he has advanced a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused for business need and for repayment of the same, ten cheques of Rs.40,000/- came to be issued. Out of that six cheques were honoured while four cheques were dishonoured. Hence, he lodged a complaint. It is the specific case of the complainant that amount was transferred to the account of the accused. This fact is not denied or disputed. Further, this is again evidenced by documentary evidence produced by the complainant and bank statement account at Ex.P8. Ex.P7 is on demand promissory note. All these aspects clearly establish amount was transferred to the account of accused and out of ten cheques issued, four cheques dishonoured and only six cheques were honoured.

¶33

Accused has not disputed that cheques belongs to him and further the signatures on the cheuques. It is for the accused to explain under what circumstances the cheques were issued. But no specific defense is forthcoming. In his evidence accused has admitted that he has borrowed loan of Rs.4,00,000/- and though he asserts the repayment of the entire amount, no evidence is forthcoming. On the contrary, he

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:29464 CRL.RP No. 709 of 2019

¶35

admits that he has issued ten cheques out of which six cheques were honoured. It has also come in evidence subsequently, another 40,000/- is also paid and hence, total payment out of due amount is Rs.2,80,000/- and balance is Rs.1,20,000/- only.

¶36

Considering these aspects and considering the admission on the part of the accused, both the Courts below have convicted the accused and no illegality or infirmity is found. Further, Court has also taken note of subsequent payment and that was deducted from the balance cheque amount and the fine was imposed only to the extent of Rs.1,20,000/-. Out of the fine, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-, an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 357 of Cr.P.C., and remaining Rs.5,000/- is appropriated to the government exchequer. Instead of compensation that can be converted into fine by enhancing it to Rs.1,25,000/- in place of sentence of imprisonment . Only to this extent the petition needs to be allowed regarding sentence portion and accordingly, the point under consideration is answered partly in the affirmative and hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:29464 CRL.RP No. 709 of 2019

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The revision petition is allowed in part.

¶41

The judgment of conviction passed by XV A.C.M.M., Bangalore, in CC No.23843/2016, dated 01.08.2017 and confirmed by the LX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.1216/2017 dated 05.03.2019, stands confirmed. However, the sentence portion is modified and the sentence of imprisonment is set aside, but the compensation awarded to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- is converted into fine by imposing fine of Rs.1,25,000/- on accused and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

¶42

Out of fine, Rs.1,15,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation.

¶43

Send back the records to the trial Court with a direction

¶44

to trial Court to secure the presence of the accused for serving the sentence and collecting the fine, if not deposited.

¶45

Sd/- JUDGE

¶46

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Sri Govind v. Jathar v Smt C Radha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Govind v. Jathar v Smt C Radha

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

Sri. T. Suresh Vs Smt. R. C. Rajalakshmi

M Sahul Hameed Vs Zeenath Banu

Sri.Chikkanna@Prem Vs Srinivasa

Manjappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Govind v Jathar Vs Smt Sangeetha B Ahuja

Sri Govind v Jathar Vs Sri P Khanchand