Dismissed

Sri.Govind v. Jathar v Smt.Bhavani S

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2024CRL.RP/483/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the High Court of Karnataka examined the lower court's conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Finding that the accused failed to pay despite notice and did not cross-examine the complainant, the Court held the impugned judgment was correct and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

Sri.Govind v Jathar Vs Smt.Bhavani S — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9304 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 483 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI GOVIND V. JATHAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS M/S. SRI GANESH TRADERS PROPRIETOR NO.B- 91, 1^ST STAGE, 2^ND CROSS PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BANGALORE - 560 058.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. BHAVANI S., W/O SRI V. JAGADISH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.49/C, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD SHANKARPURAM, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU REP. BY SPA HOLDER SRI V.UDAYA KUMAR S/O SRI R. VENKOBA RAO BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2020 PASSED BY THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-61), IN CRL.A.NO.212/2018 AND

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9304 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2020

¶19

THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2018 IN C.C.NO.23222/2016 FROM THE FILE OF THE COURT OF XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.138 OF NI ACT.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard The learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶23

The present revision petition is filed by the against the order passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.23222/2016 wherein the Trial Court having taken note of four Cheques were dishonored to the tune of amount of Rs.35,000/- for three Cheques and for an amount of Rs.25,000/- for another Cheque. The Complaint was filed. The Trial Court has taken the cognizance and it is also the specific case that total 20 Cheques were issued, out of that sixteen Cheques are honored and four Cheques are dishonored. Notice was also issued, inspite of it, accused has not paid the amount. Though the accused has appeared before the Trial Court, he did not choose to cross

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9304 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2020

¶25

examine the PW1. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/-. Out of fine amount so collected Rs.1,40,000/- ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and balance of Rs.10,000/- shall vest with the State. In default of payment of such compensation, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶26

Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.212/2018. The First Appellate Court having considered the material available on record, particularly cross-examination of PW1 and not lead any evidence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed.

¶27

The counsel for revision petitioner would vehemently contend that an opportunity has to be given to the revision petitioner and the question of revision petition

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:9304 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2020

¶30

does not arise and presumption has to be drawn according

¶31

to the circumstantial evidence available on record.

¶32

Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would submits that no dispute with regard to the availing of loan and also repayment was made, but four Cheques are not in order and to that effect complaint was filed and cross-examination was made. No scope for revision.

¶33

Having heard the revision petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and also it is not in dispute that totally twenty Cheques were given and out of that sixteen Cheques were honored and four Cheques were dishonored. The fact that the four Cheques were dishonored is also communicated to the accused by issuing the notice on 18.08.2016 and though notice was served, neither replied nor repaid the amount. Hence, approached the Court. Having taken note of no reply by the revision petitioner/accused and also no crossexamination of PW1 by the defense counsel and also not executed the Cheques which have been issued is also

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9304 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2020

¶35

admitted fact that out of 20 Cheques, 16 Cheques were honored and 4 Cheques were dishonored. When such being the case, no reason to remand the matter in view of submission of the counsel, question of remanding the matter also does not arise. Both the judgments of the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court not suffers from its legality and its correctness in the absence of any crossexamination and contra evidence and hence no grounds are made out to invoke revisional jurisdiction.

¶36

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Sri.Govind v. Jathar v Smt.Bhavani S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Govind v. Jathar v Smt.Bhavani S

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

Smt. Latha Vs Sri. Bandhi Ningegowda

Gopala Vs State by Chikkamagalur Town Police

Sri P Venkatesh Vs Sri C K Prasad

Sri K S Muthappa Vs Sri a P Dharmappa

H N Dayananda Vs State of Karnataka by

Veerendra M D Vs State of Karnataka