Dismissed

Sri. Adukunhi @ Adam Kunhi v. Sri. Ganaraja B

Karnataka HC24 Aug 2023CRL.RP/943/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging a conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Upholding the trial court and appellate court findings that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption regarding the cheque's issue towards a legally enforceable debt.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; amount in deposit to be paid to complainant.

Sri. Adukunhi @ Adam Kunhi Vs Sri. Ganaraja B — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:30437 CRL.RP No. 943 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.943 OF 2015

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. ADUKUNHI @ ADAM KUNHI S/O ADRAMA BEARY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O KODIMBADY VILLAGE & POST, PUTTUR TALUK. D.K. DISTRICT - 574 201

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY K AND SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATES - ABSENT)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by RENUKAMBA K G

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI. GANARAJA B S/O GANAPATHY BHAT AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O BEERANATHADKA HOUSE PERABE POST, KUNTHOOR VILALGE, PUTTUR TALUK,D.K - 574 201

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

¶18

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 03.04.2014 MADE IN C.C.NO.183/2011 BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT PUTTUR AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.07.2015 MADE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.95/2014 BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K. AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:30437 CRL.RP No. 943 of 2015

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This revision petition is filed by accused/revision petitioner under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.183/2011 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur vide judgment dated 03.04.2014 and confirmed the criminal appeal No.94/2014 by V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru sitting at Puttur.

¶24

The brief factual matrix leading to the case is

¶25

that for money due to the complainant regarding sale of areca nut, accused has issued a cheque dated 14.05.2010 for Rs.2,00,000/- and when the said cheque was presented, the same was returned with endorsement as "insufficient funds". A legal notice was also issued and the same was served on the accused. But he has given accused a frivolous reply. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:30437 CRL.RP No. 943 of 2015

¶27

issued process. Accused has appeared and was enlarged on bail. He denied the accusation.

¶28

The complainant was got examined himself as PW-1 and placed reliance on four documents marked at Ex.P1 to P4. Thereafter, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of the prosecution. He did not lead any evidence on his behalf but he got marked one document as Ex.D1. He has also produced certain documents in the form of FLW issued etc., but they were not tendered in evidence. However, accused did not lead any evidence to substantiate his defence.

¶29

After having heard the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and on perusing the material on record, learned Magistrate has convicted the accused by imposing fine of Rs.3,00,000/Lakhs with default sentence. This order is being challenged before V Additional Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru sitting at

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:30437 CRL.RP No. 943 of 2015

¶31

Puttur in Criminal Appeal No.95/2014. Learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Magistrate.

¶32

Against these concurrent findings, the accused

¶33

is before this Court by way of revision petition. Though the revision petition is filed in the year 2015, learned counsel for revision petitioner did not initiate any steps to argue the matter. Hence, exercising the powers under Section 403 of Cr.P.C., the Court has verified the records.

¶34

On perusal of the cross examination of the

¶35

complainant, it is evident that accused has admitted the cheque and his signature on the cheque. The cross examination of complainant disclose that accused has not disputed that the cheque does not belong to him and it bears his signature. However, the accused has only disputed the transaction but to substantiate the said contention, accused has not produced any material

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:30437 CRL.RP No. 943 of 2015

¶37

document to show that the cheque was issued for any other purpose.

¶38

Under Section 139 of NI Act there is a statutory

¶39

presumption in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt. The burden is on the accused to rebut the said presumption. The cross examination of the complainant disclose that the accused has not rebutted the said presumption. Even his 313 statement did not disclose as to how the cheque came into the possession of the complainant.

¶40

Looking to these facts and circumstances, both the Courts are justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the appellate Court does to suffer from any perversity.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:30437 CRL.RP No. 943 of 2015

¶43

Hence, the revision petition being devoid of any

¶44

merits needs to be dismissed. Accordingly, it stands dismissed. The amount in deposit in Courts shall be paid to complainant/respondent herein.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Sri. Adukunhi @ Adam Kunhi v. Sri. Ganaraja B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Adukunhi @ Adam Kunhi v. Sri. Ganaraja B

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

Mr Rama Prasad @ Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. v. Prabhakar Reddy Vs Sri. B.M. Rangaswamy

Sathish Shetty K Vs Self Growth Nidhi Ltd.

Khader Hayath Basha Vs Shahina Banu

Abdul Nafsal Vs the State by

B Doddabyraiah Vs State of Karnataka