Dismissed

Sri S S Umashankar v. M/S Maruthi Oil Traders

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2024CRL.RP/1009/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused convicted under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of three cheques totalling Rs.10 lakhs towards business dues; appeal dismissed. Revision argued cheques given under a rental agreement were misused. Court found the rental-agreement cheques bore different numbers and amounts; no complaint of misuse was ever filed. Conviction confirmed and revision dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri S S Umashankar Vs M/S Maruthi Oil Traders — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:41517 CRL.RP No. 1009 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1009 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. S.S. UMASHANKAR, S/O A.N. SADASHIVAYYA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SUMA OIL AGENCIES, NO.47, 3RD STAGE, PILLANNA GARDEN, NAGAWARA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 045.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M.S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

M/S MARUTHI OIL TRADERS, NO.39, 2ND MAIN ROAD, NEW TARAGUPET, BENGALURU - 560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, M.R. RAGHAVENDRA RAO.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.09.2018 PASSED BY THE LV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.532/2014 AND JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2014 PASSED BY THE XX ADDL.C.M.M.,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:41517 CRL.RP No. 1009 of 2018

¶19

BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.19858/2010 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel Sri. M.S. Nagaraja appearing for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent.

¶24

Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an Order of conviction in CC No.19858/2010 on the file of 20^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore

¶25

for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶26

Operative portion of the order of learned Trial Magistrate reads as under:

¶27

"Acting U/S 255(2) of Cr.P.C., I hereby convict the accused for the offence punishable U/S 138 of N.I. Act and accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.12,60,000/- (Twelve Lakh Sixty Thousand only).

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:41517 CRL.RP No. 1009 of 2018

¶30

In default thereof he shall suffer simple imprisonment for (1) One year.

¶31

The fine if realized, Rs.12,50,000 (Twelve Lakh Fifty Thousand only) there from shall be paid to the complainant as a compensation, remaining fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) is defrayed to the state for the expenses incurred in the prosecution.

¶32

The bail bond of the accused and that of surety stands cancelled."

¶33

Being aggrieved by the said Order of conviction, revision petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge in Crl.A.No.532/2014.

¶34

Learned District and Sessions Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the parties in detail and dismissed the appeal of the revision petitioner.

¶35

Operative portion of the Order of the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court reads as under:

¶36

"This Crl. Appeal No.532/2014 filed by appellants/ Accused is dismissed.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:41517 CRL.RP No. 1009 of 2018

¶39

2) The conviction order passed by the trial court in convicting the accused and ordered that he shall pay a fine of Rs.12,60,000/-, in default thereof he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year and Rs.10,000/payable to state in the fine amount is hereby confirmed.

¶40

3) No order is made as to costs"

¶41

Being aggrieved by the same, the present

¶42

revision petition is filed.

¶43

Facts in brief for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

¶44

A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by the respondent herein contending that M/s.

¶45

Maruthi Oil Traders Limited - Partnership Firm carrying on the business of Ghee, edible oil and vanaspathi products on wholesale and retail basis. It is further contended that accused has a business relationship with the complainant

¶46

and during the course of said business transactions, accused has purchased goods from the complainant on credit basis. As per the complaint averments, accused was

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:41517 CRL.RP No. 1009 of 2018

¶49

due in a sum of Rs.10,84,199.69/- and towards the discharge of the said amount, he issued three Cheques bearing Nos.(i) 070423 in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, (ii) 070424 in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and (iii) 071486 in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, No.23, Sounders Road, Frazer Town Branch towards the discharge of the balance amount.

¶50

It is further contention of the complainant that those Cheques on presentation, came to be dishonoured with an Endorsement 'Funds insufficient' and immediately thereafter a legal notice was issued by the complainant on 19.02.2010. Though the legal notice is served, there was no reply to the legal notice nor there was any compliance. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed for taking action against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶51

Learned Trial Judge after taking cognizance of the offence on completion of the formalities, summoned

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:41517 CRL.RP No. 1009 of 2018

¶54

the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty, therefore trial was held.

¶55

In order to prove the case of the complainant, partner of the of the complainant by name M.R. Nagendra Rao got examined himself as PW1 and placed on records 28 documents which are exhibited and marked as Exs. P1 to P28 comprising of Cheques, Bank Endorsements, Debit Advice, Copy of the Legal Notice, RPAD Receipts, UCP Receipt, RPAD Postal acknowledgements, Authorization Letter, Partnership Deed, Ledger Account Extract, Monthly Income Summary, Form VAT 100 from April to July 2008, Income Tax Returns or the year 2009-10, Praja Vani Newspaper dated 05.07.2010, Concern Head note in Page No.2, complaint, certified copy of the FIR and the certified copy of the order sheet in Cr.No.14/10. Detailed cross examination of PW-1 did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve the case of complainant or to dislodge the presumption available to the compliant under section 139 of N.I. Act.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:41517 CRL.RP No. 1009 of 2018

¶58

Statement of the accused as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein

¶59

accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances.

¶60

In order to dislodge the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, accused stepped into the witness box and examined himself as DW1 and placed on records five documents which are exhibited and marked as Exs.D1 to

¶61

D5 which are notarized copies of VAT registration certificate, notarized copy of the rent agreement, notarized copy of the receipt, notarized copy of the affidavit issued to the Commissioner of Commercial Tax and Bank statement.

¶62

Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge heard the parties in detail and on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record in the cumulative manner, convicted the accused as referred to supra.

¶63

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:41517 CRL.RP No. 1009 of 2018

¶65

Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an

¶66

appeal which on contest came to be dismissed as referred to supra.

¶67

Being further aggrieved by the same,

¶68

accused/revision petitioner is before this Court. The learned counsel Sri. M.S. Nagaraja, for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that the learned Trial Judge did not appreciate the material evidence on record in proper perspective, especially ignored the probative value of Ex.D3 wherein the Cheques were given at the time of entering into a rental agreement with the complainant and the same has been misused by the complainant and therefore sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration.

¶69

Counsel for the respondent/complainant has remained absent today.

¶70

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:41517 CRL.RP No. 1009 of 2018

¶72

In the light of the grounds urged in the revision petition and arguments put-forth by the learned counsel

¶73

Sri. M.S. Nagaraja, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶74

On such perusal of the material on records, the

¶75

signatures found in Exs.P1 to P3 is not in dispute, so also, the dishonour of the Cheque on the ground that the 'funds insufficient' is not in dispute. Legal notice duly served after the dishonour of the Cheques. There was no reply to the legal notice nor compliance.

¶76

Exs.D2 and D3 are the crucial documents

¶77

according to the counsel for the revision petitioner where

¶78

under the Cheques given by the accused at the time of entering into rental agreement has been misused by the complainant. In this regard, learned counsel for the revision petitioner drew the attention of this Court to contents of Ex.D3. Ex.D3 is a notarized copy and there is no material on record to show that how secondary

¶79

10 -

¶80

NC: 2024:KHC:41517 CRL.RP No. 1009 of 2018

¶81

evidence came to be entertained by the learned Trial Magistrate.

¶82

Nevertheless, as per Ex.D3, three Cheques have been issued by the accused to the complainant. Details of those Cheques are mentioned/extracted

¶83

hereunder:

¶84

"(i) Rs.2 Lakhs Cheque bearing No.568023 dated 03.06.2007 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Frazer Town, Bangalore.

¶85

(ii) Rs.1 Lakh Cheque bearing No.568024 dated 05.08.2007 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Frazer Town, Bangalore.

¶86

(iii) Rs.1 Lakh Cheque bearing No.568025 dated 05.09.2007 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Frazer Town, Bangalore."

¶87

On bear perusal of the Cheque numbers and the amount mentioned in Ex.D3 and the Cheque numbers

¶88

vide Exs.P1 to P3 and the amount therein, it is crystal clear that the Cheques issued at the time of rental agreement are not the Cheques which are subject matter of complaint in C.C. No.19858/2010.

¶89

11 -

¶90

NC: 2024:KHC:41517 CRL.RP No. 1009 of 2018

¶91

Therefore, the arguments that is put-forth on behalf of the accused that the Cheques that were given at the time of entering into the rental agreement have been misused by the complainant cannot be countenanced in law.

¶92

Further, at least after entering appearance before the Court, the accused had come to know that the Cheques have been misused, some positive action should have been taken by the accused in filing a criminal complaint against the complainant if there is a misuse of the Cheques as alleged by the accused. No such positive action has been taken by the accused till date.

¶93

These aspects of the matter can viewed cumulatively, it is crystal clear that since the Cheques found in Exs.D3 and Exs.P1 to P3 are altogether different and there are other material on record which would establish that there was a business transaction between

¶94

the accused and complainant and there was a due in a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs and odd, this Court is of the

¶95

12 -

¶96

NC: 2024:KHC:41517 CRL.RP No. 1009 of 2018

¶97

considered opinion that the conviction order passed by the

¶98

learned Trial Judge and confirmed by the First Appellate Court does not call for interference by this Court that too

¶99

in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the following :

¶100

ORDER

¶101

(i) Revision petition is meritless. Accordingly admission declined and

¶102

revision petition is dismissed.

¶103

(ii) No order as to costs.

¶104

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶105

SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 CT: BHK

Sri S S Umashankar v. M/S Maruthi Oil Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri S S Umashankar v. M/S Maruthi Oil Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Vishal Ramesh Khatwani Vs State of Karnataka

Sannaiah Deceased Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri B R Somashekarappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Ms. Erica Vs Smt. Charumathi

The State of Karnataka Vs Manoj Kumar

H Shivakumar Vs Mahendrakumar