Partly allowed

Sri M K Ranganatha v. Sri B H Ramachandra

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2024CRL.RP/442/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal revision petition in part against a conviction under Section 138 NI Act. The Court upheld the conviction and maintenance of costs against the complainant but set aside the order directing Rs. 10,000 as defraying expenses to the State, noting that such costs do not bind private parties in this context.

What did the court decide?

The order directing the accused to pay Rs. 10,000 towards defraying expenses to the State was set aside. The order of conviction and sentence against the complainant was maintained.

Sri M K Ranganatha Vs Sri B H Ramachandra — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:18935 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 442 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. M.K. RANGANATHA S/O LATE M.D. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT KANTHARAJAPPA VILLAGE, SHARAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI, CHENNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH R.C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R P., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. B.H. RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE HONNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.5128, 12^TH MAIN, M.S.RAMAIAH LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 073.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. MANOJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANIL KUMAR R., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2020 PASSED BY THE LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59), BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1010/2019 AND

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:18935 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2021

¶18

THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2019 PASSED BY THE XXVI ADDITIONAL C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.26228/2014.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri.Rangaswamaiah R. C., learned counsel for Sri.R.P.Somashekharaiah, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Manoj, learned counsel for Sri.Anil Kumar R., learned counsel for the respondent.

¶22

The present revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.26228/2014, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.1010/2019.

¶23

Brief facts of the case which are utmost

¶24

necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

¶25

A complaint came to be filed by the complainant against the accused on the ground that accused issued a

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:18935 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2021

¶27

cheque bearing No.469880 dated 17.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Hunsur Branch, Mysore District, which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, the legal notice came to be issued and same was sent by registered post, acknowledgment due. Though the demand notice was sent to two addresses, in both the addresses, legal notices were not served and returned with an endorsements 'not available' and 'not claimed'. There was no compliance nor reply to the notice. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶28

The learned Trial Magistrate after taking cognizance, secured the presence of the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the trial was held.

¶29

In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant got examined as P.W.1 and relied on 6

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:18935 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2021

¶32

documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.6.

¶33

In order to rebut the evidence placed on record

¶34

by the complainant, accused got examined as D.W.1, wherein he denied that the very issuance of the cheque and same is for the legally recoverable debt.

¶35

The Trial Court recorded the accused’s statement and heard the arguments of the parties and convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence and enforced fine in a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, out of which Rs.7,90,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be remitted to the State towards the defraying expenses.

¶36

Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.1010/2019.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:18935 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2021

¶39

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records and hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused by confirming the judgment passed by learned Trial Magistrate.

¶40

Being aggrieved by the same, the revision

¶41

petitioner is before this Court.

¶42

Reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, Sri.Rangaswamaiah R., learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the cheque issued by the accused as a security has been misused by the complainant and learned Trial magistrate did not notice the said aspect of the matter that there is no legally recoverable debt and sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶43

Per contra, Sri.Anil Kumar R., learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned judgment.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:18935 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2021

¶46

In view of the rival contentions of the parties,

¶47

this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶48

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that Ex.P.1 is signed by the accused and there is no dispute as to the signature found in Ex.P.1.

¶49

Whenever a cheque is issued wherein, the signature is admitted, it should be presumed that same is for consideration as is found in Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶50

No doubt, it is a rebuttable presumption. In order to rebut the said presumption, accused has chosen to examine himself as D.W.1 and has come with a story that he was working in Periapatna and there was a tendor in that regard and in that regard the cheque was issued. According to him, there was no legally recoverable debt for which the cheque was issued and same is misused by the complainant.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:18935 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2021

¶53

In order to advance the said theory, except the oral testimony of the accused, there is no material evidence on record.

¶54

Under such circumstances, learned Trial Judge noticed that the evidence placed on record by the accused is a self serving statement and said evidence did not rebut the presumption available to the complainant and convicted the accused.

¶55

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after reconsidering the material evidence on record, confirmed the order of the learned Trial Magistrate.

¶56

This Court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction, cannot revisit to the factual aspects of the matter. Suffice it to say that the cheque has been issued by the complainant having been established and theory put forward by the accused that same was misused in the absence of any positive evidence on record placed by the accused viz., filing of police complaint or atleast issuing a

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:18935 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2021

¶59

legal notice, atleast after the appearance before the learned Trial Magistrate. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction recorded by both the Courts needs no interference.

¶60

However, in respect of the fine amount, sum of Rs.10,000/- is ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate to be paid towards the defraying expenses of the State, this Court has to interfere as the lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved.

¶61

Under such circumstances, directing sum of Rs.10,000/- to be paid as the defraying expenses to the State needs to be interfered by this Court.

¶62

Accordingly, the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i. Revision petition is allowed in part .

¶65

ii. While maintaining the order of conviction of the accused for the offence under

¶66

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:18935 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2021

¶67

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ordering sum of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the State as fine amount, towards the defraying expenses is hereby set aside.

¶68

iii. Rest of the sentence stands unaltered.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Sri M K Ranganatha v. Sri B H Ramachandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M K Ranganatha v. Sri B H Ramachandra

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. Sampath Vs Smt. Jospheen

Smt. P. Hemavathy Vs Smt. M. C. Sudhamani

Sri G v Sridhar Vs Smt Sunanda

Sri Shakeel Ahmed Khan Vs Smt Farzana Begum

Mr D S Raji Vs Mr K R Narayana Murthy

Sri Karthik Kumar Vs Smt Sushma