Partly allowed

M S Nagaraj v. Dhathathriya Batta

Karnataka HC26 Jun 2024CRL.RP/69/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition in part. The High Court reduced the fine compensation to Rs.35,000 and set aside the ₹1,000 fine imposed towards defraying expenses of the State. The High Court held that since no State machinery is involved in cheque bounce cases, fines for State expenses are impermissible.

What did the court decide?

The fine of Rs.1,000 towards defraying expenses of the State is set aside. The fine for compensation is reduced to Rs.35,000. Time is granted for payment till July 25, 2024.

M S Nagaraj Vs Dhathathriya Batta — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:23626 CRL.RP No. 69 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.69 OF 2020 (397)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M S NAGARAJ S/O M. SUBRAMANYA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.263/1, CHELUVAMBA AGRAHARA, K.R.MOHALLA MYSORE-570028.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VEERABHADRA SWAMY H P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

DHATHATHRIYA BATTA S/O NARASHIMA BATTA, AGE 46 YEARS, D.NO.1, SRI SEETHARAMASWAMY TEMPLE, SEETHA VILASA ROAD, OPP: MARIMALLAPPA COLLEGE, MYSORE-560024. …RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. DHATHATHRIYA BATTA- SERVED)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.104/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU AND JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.04.2016 MADE IN C.C.NO.1075/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE COURT C/C JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (IV COURT) MYSURU

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:23626 CRL.RP No. 69 of 2020

¶19

(JMFC III COURT AT MYSURU) AND CONSIDERED THE SAID CRL.RP ON MERITS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri. Veerabhadra Swamy H.P, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶22

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

¶23

submits that despite his best efforts, he could not get the presence of the respondent. Further, he also submits that he is ready to address the arguments on merits. Accordingly, the matter is heard on merits.

¶24

The accused who has suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.1075/2015 confirmed in Crl.A.No.104/2016 has filed this revision petition challenging the validity of the judgments of both the Courts.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:23626 CRL.RP No. 69 of 2020

¶27

Brief facts of the case which are utmost

¶28

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

¶29

The complainant lodged the complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I Act' for brevity), by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The complaint averments reveals that accused approached the complainant in the month of June 2011 and requested him to advance hand

¶30

loan in a sum of Rs.25,000/- with a promise to repay the same as early as possible. Towards repayment of the said hand loan, accused issued a cheque bearing No.471281 dated 20.10.2011 for a sum of Rs.25,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank. Said cheque on presentation came to be dishonoured with an endorsement as 'insufficient funds'. Legal notice issued to the accused, but there is no compliance nor any reply, but accused in turn issued a untenable reply. Therefore, the complainant sought for action.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:23626 CRL.RP No. 69 of 2020

¶33

5. Learned trial Magistrate after taking cognizance

¶34

of the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act, secured the presence of the accused and recorded plea. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the trial was held. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and placed on record 4 documents namely cheque, Bank endorsement, copy of legal notice and reply notice. Accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein accused denied all the incriminating circumstances. Thereafter, accused got examined himself as DW.1, but did not place any documentary evidence on record.

¶35

6. Learned trial judge thereafter heard the parties

¶36

in detail and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act and ordered to pay fine of Rs.36,000/- , out of sum of Rs.35,000/- was ordered to be

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:23626 CRL.RP No. 69 of 2020

¶39

paid as compensation to the complainant and Rs.1,000/-

¶40

towards defraying expenses of the State.

¶41

Being aggrieved by the same, accused has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.104/2016 before the District court.

¶42

Learned judge of the first appellate Court after securing the records and hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal dated 06.09.2019. Subsequent thereto, accused is before this Court in this revision petition.

¶43

Sri. Veerabhadra Swamy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the courts have failed to appreciate the material evidence on record in proper perspective and sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶44

He also contends that in the reply notice there is specific contention taken by the accused that accused lost his money purse wherein the signed cheque was also

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:23626 CRL.RP No. 69 of 2020

¶47

kept and thereafter, the same has reached the hands of

¶48

the complainant and there is a misuse of the cheque.

¶49

To probablise the said defence, no material

¶50

evidence is placed on record in the form of police complaint for the loss of the money purse or misuse of the cheque. Therefore, trial Magistrate believed the version of the complainant and convicted the accused. Since the material evidence on record does not indicate any legal infirmity, the theory loss of purse as is contended by the accused cannot be countenanced in law which has been rightly appreciated by the trial Magistrate and learned judge in the first appellate Court.

¶51

Therefore, this Court, that too in the revision jurisdiction, cannot interfere in the said finding.

¶52

Having said thus, since lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved, imposition of fine of Rs.1,000/- to the State cannot be countenance in law, to that extent revision petition is to be allowed.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:23626 CRL.RP No. 69 of 2020

¶55

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i. The criminal revision petition is allowed in part.

¶58

ii. While maintaining the order of conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, fine imposed by the trial Court for a sum of Rs.36,000/- is reduced to a sum of Rs.35,000/. Entire sum of Rs.35,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant, failing which, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

¶59

iii. Fine amount of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the trial Court confirmed by the first Appellate

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:23626 CRL.RP No. 69 of 2020

¶62

Court towards the defraying expenses of the State is hereby set aside.

¶63

iv. Time is granted for the accused to pay the balance sum of fine amount till 25^th July

¶64

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

SKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

M S Nagaraj v. Dhathathriya Batta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Nagaraj v. Dhathathriya Batta

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

Ramanna Vs Sumalatha

Mr. S S Ananthakrishna Vs Mr Vishwasa K L

Sokkara Chandrappa Vs Anandappa B S

Sri v Govinda Vs Sri Radhakrishna M S

Sri Sannaswamy Vs the State by

M Rajuram Vs State of Karnataka