Revision against conviction under Section 138 NI Act after trial and appellate confirmation. The accused's misuse-of-blank-cheque defence failed for want of corroborating evidence, so the presumption under Section 139 stood and conviction was upheld; only the Rs.5,000/- fine towards State expenses was set aside.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:20933 CRL.RP No. 286 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 286 OF 2021 (397)
BETWEEN:
SRI. A. DASS, S/O ANTHONI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O NO.7, DURGA KRUPA, 5TH 'C' CROSS, BUPASANDRA SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 094.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BALAJI RAGHUNATHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SMT. RAJARAJESWARI, W/O M. K. HONNACHAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O NO.51, 2ND CROSS, CHIKKADINNE (NEAR RANGANATHA KALYANA MANTAPA) ATTUR LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GIRISHA S HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.01.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.312/2018 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 29.01.2018 PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND XXVI ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.338/2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY PASS AN ORDER OF ACQUITTAL ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER HEREIN
NC: 2024:KHC:20933 CRL.RP No. 286 of 2021
IN C.C.NO.338/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND XXVI ACMM, BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.Balaji Raghunathan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Girish S. Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present revision petition is filed by the
accused challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.338/2014, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed fine in a sum of Rs.5,44,000/- and sum of Rs.5,000/- is to be paid towards the defraying expenses of the State, which was confirmed by learned Judge in the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.312/2018.
NC: 2024:KHC:20933 CRL.RP No. 286 of 2021
3.1. Upon the complaint lodged by the complainant
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act contending that accused had approached the complainant for financial assistance in a sum of Rs.6,80,000/- to perform his daughter's marriage and to discharge the debts, during the year 2011 and agreed to pay interest at 18% p.a. When there is a failure to make to the payment, there was a panchayat and parties were also required to visit the police station. As
per the panchayat, accused said to have tendered a cheque in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards full and final settlement and said cheque was misused by the complainant by filling sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Said cheque on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'.
3.2. Thereafter, legal notice was issued to the
accused was not complied, inasmuch as, accused did not claim the register cover. Therefore, the complainant
sought for action against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
complainant, accused got examined himself as D.W.1 and
relied on four documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.D.1 to Ex.D.4 comprising of letter as Ex.D.1, signature of the complainant as Ex.D.1(a), marriage invitation cards as Exs.D.2 to Ex.D.4.
recorded the accused's statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein, he has denied all the incriminatory circumstances. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments and after considering the material evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed fine in a sum of Rs.5,44,000/and same was ordered to paid as compensation to the complainant and default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months and sum of Rs.5,000/- was ordered to be paid as defraying expenses of the State.
NC: 2024:KHC:20933 CRL.RP No. 286 of 2021
NC: 2024:KHC:20933 CRL.RP No. 286 of 2021
complainant has misused the cheque by inserting Rs.4,00,000/and therefore, there was no legally recoverable debt and complainant is a total stranger to the accused.
NC: 2024:KHC:20933 CRL.RP No. 286 of 2021
NC: 2024:KHC:20933 CRL.RP No. 286 of 2021
cheque was handed over by the accused to her in the police station and therefore, there is no misuse.
matter especially, when the evidence placed on record by the accused is not sufficient enough to rebut the said presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
23. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, imposition of fine in a sum of Rs.5,44,000/- to be paid to the complainant stands unaltered.
iii. Ordering sum of Rs.5,000/- as the expenses to the State is hereby set aside.
iv. Default sentence as ordered by learned Trial Judge in not paying the fine amount of Rs.5,44,000/- stands unaltered.
v. However, time is granted to the accused to pay the balance fine amount till 30.06.2024.
Sd/JUDGE
KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused's blank-cheque-misuse defence sufficiently rebutted the Section 139 presumption in favour of the complainant.
Whether the fine of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State was warranted.
6 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI. A. DASS
SMT. RAJARAJESWARI
V SRISHANANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
