The High Court of Karnataka disposed of three connected criminal revision petitions filed by the same petitioner in matters of dishonored cheques. The court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit to interfere with the findings of conviction as the defense evidence was not substantiated.
The Revision Petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.
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:13684 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 35 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 42 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 31 OF 2020 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 35 OF 2020 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 42 OF 2020
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 31 OF 2020:
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT.THANIMA BEKAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T.,)
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
HANUMANTHAPPA S., DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
W/O LAXMANA NAIK AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
R/O MALLIKARJUNA BADAVANE AMARVATHI, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577601
NC: 2024:KHC:13684 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 35 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 42 of 2020
R/O MALLIKARJUNA BADAVANE AMARVATHI, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577601
D/O LATE HANUMANTHA NAIK AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O MALLIKARJUNA BADAVANE AMARVATHI, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577601
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 30.06.2015 MADE IN C.C.NO.911/2005 BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, HARIHARA AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.10.2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN CRL.A.NO.79/2015 AND ACQUIT HIM OF THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED BY THE COURTS BELOW.
NC: 2024:KHC:13684 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 35 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 42 of 2020
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 35 OF 2020:
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT.THANIMA BEKAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . MR. C.N.ANNAPPA S/O C. NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT MANJUNATH ELECTRICAL MARATA GALLI, HARIHARA DAVANAGERE - 577 601.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 30.06.2015 MADE IN C.C.NO.828/2005 BY THE COURT OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHAR AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.10.2019 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.80/2015 BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE AND ACQUIT HIM OF THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED BY THE COURTS BELOW.
NC: 2024:KHC:13684 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 35 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 42 of 2020
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 42 OF 2020:
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT.THANIMA BEKAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . MR.T.R.PRASANNA S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, CONTRACT LABOURER IN RAILWAY STATION R/AT NEAR WATER TANK HARLAPUR, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 28.09.2015 MADE IN C.C.NO.874/2005 BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHAR AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.10.2019 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.113/2015 BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE ACQUIT HIM OF THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED BY THE COURT BELOW.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR SETTLEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.
are different but the accused is same.
themselves as PW1 in all the cases. Though the defense was set-out, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of the respective PW1 with regard to the contention that the Cheque was collected by Manjunath and those Cheques are handed over to these complainants, even the revision petitioner also not made any effort to examine the said Manjunath and nothing is placed on record to probablize the case of defense of the accused. Admittedly, the issuance of Cheque is not in dispute and complainant also produced the original Cheque at Ex.P1 and also respective endorsement before the Trial Court. When transaction is
only for an amount of Rs.65,000/-, Rs.60,000/- and Rs.25,000/- in respective revision petitions. In a revision petition, only Court can look into any answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 has not been considered by the respective Courts. But, the Appellate Court re-assessed the evidence available on record and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in respective cases and having taken note of the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments also, when the Cheques are not
disputed. Though contend that 10 Cheques were collected and misused in order to probablize the case of revision petitioner also nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 –complainant in respective cases. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court. Even the presumption has not been rebutted. Though examined DW1 in respective cases and produced the document of ‘D’- series i.e., certified copy of complaint, notice, postal envelop, postal receipt, order sheet, deposition and Cheques, since several complaints
are filed against him. Mere marking of those documents also not probablize the case of the accused. When such being the case, unless the evidence of complainant is rebutted in all the cases, question of exercising the revision does not arise. Hence, I do not find any ground in all the revision petitions to comes to a other conclusion. Hence, no merits in the revision petitions.
the following:
ORDER
The Revision Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by lower courts in cases involving dishonored cheques.
Whether the defense plea regarding misappropriation of cheques was adequately supported by evidence on record to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI LAXMIPATHI NAIK
HANUMANTHAPPA S.
C.N. ANNA PPA
T.R. PRASANNA
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
