Mr. Daithota Suresh Bhat Vs Mr. Srikanth

MR. DAITHOTA SURESH BHAT, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE D ANANTHA BHAT, R/AT 2-7-564, BHAGIRATHI SADANA, KUNIKANA, NEAR KUNTIKANA C GOVT. SCHOOL, KAPIAKAD, MAGALORE - 575 004.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SOHAN B SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MR SRIKANTH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O SEETHARAM SAPALYA, R/AT D NO. 6-115/2, AVINA NILAYA, NEAR LAXMI NARASIMHA TEMPLE, ULLAL MANGALURU - 575 020.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI GOVINDARAJ K, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.04.2022 IN CRL.A.NO.118/2021 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE D.K., AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE IX JMFC, MANGALORE D.K., DATED 25.08.2021 IN C.C.NO.249/2018.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:31670 CRL.RP No. 1565 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against concurrent finding for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act').

¶25

The cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- is dishonoured. The complainant issued a notice calling upon the accused to repay the amount mentioned in the cheque consequent to the dishonour of the cheque. To the said notice, the accused has not replied. The complaint is filed in time.

¶26

The complainant states that Rs.1,90,000/- was paid on two occasions by transferring the amount to the account of the accused and he further submits that he has paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- in cash. In support of his claim that he has transferred the amount to the account of the accused, complainant has produced Ex.P.6-the Bank statement.

¶27

The accused contested the case. Accused crossexamined the complainant and tried to establish the case

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:31670 CRL.RP No. 1565 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

that the complainant has taken the cheque from the accused by exerting force. This contention was denied by the complainant.

¶32

Accused did not lead any rebuttal evidence. The Trial Court convicted the accused and imposed a fine of Rs.4,20,000/-. Rs.4,18,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and remaining amount is ordered to be defrayed as State expenses. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused is directed to undergo a simple imprisonment for four months.

¶33

The accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal agreeing with the finding of the Trial Court. Hence, the present petition.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶35

would submit that the loan transaction of Rs.4,00,000/- as alleged by the complainant is not established. He would submit that no document is produced to show the hand loan transaction of Rs.4,00,000/- is lent to the accused and the

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31670 CRL.RP No. 1565 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

accused has rebutted the presumption available under Section 139 of NI Act. Both the Courts have erred in holding that the transaction is established and erred in convicting the petitioner/accused.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ complainant would urge that the transaction is very much established as loan of Rs.4,00,000/- is paid to the petitioner/ accused. Out of Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.1,90,000/- is paid on 19.05.2017 and another sum of Rs.1,90,000/- is paid on 22.05.2017 by crediting the amount to account

¶40

No.20345817078 pertaining to the accused.

¶41

In addition, it is also stated that Rs.20,000/- is

¶42

paid in cash. Learned counsel submits that the defence of the accused is not established. Accused did not lead rebuttal evidence by entering into witness box. The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is not rebutted and both

¶43

Courts have concurrently held that the transaction is established and accused committed offence punishable under NI Act.

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:31670 CRL.RP No. 1565 of 2022

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

This Court has considered the contentions raised

¶48

at the bar and perused the records.

¶49

It is the specific case of the complainant that Rs.1,90,000/- is credited to the account of the accused on 19.05.2017 and again Rs.1,90,000/is credited on 22.05.2017. Thus, the transaction is established through Ex.P6- the bank statement produced by the complainant.

¶50

There is nothing in the cross-examination to disbelieve the documents marked at Ex.P6 that accused has not led any rebuttal evidence. The contention that a sum of Rs.20,000/- is not paid through cash is not established as there is a presumption in favour of the complainant as the cheque amount is for Rs.4,00,000/-. Out of Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.3,80,000/- is transferred to the account of the accused.

¶51

Under these circumstances, both the Courts have concurrently held that the transaction is established and accused committed offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶52

The cheque is dated 02.12.2017 and the amount

¶53

ought to have been paid before 2017 itself. However, the

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:31670 CRL.RP No. 1565 of 2022

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Trial Court has imposed a fine of Rs.4,20,000/- in the year 2021, same is confirmed by the Appellate Court.

¶58

The complainant has not filed the appeal seeking enhancement of fine amount of compensation. Under these circumstances, though the fine amount appears to be on lower side, this Court has no other option but to confirm the said finding.

¶59

The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed .

¶60

However, considering the circumstances, three months time is granted to the petitioner to pay the balance amount.

¶61

In case the amount is not paid, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months as awarded by the Trial Court.

¶62

The amount in deposit shall be released in favour of the complainant/respondent.

¶63

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶64

GVP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21

Mr. Daithota Suresh Bhat v. Mr. Srikanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Daithota Suresh Bhat v. Mr. Srikanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shiva Gaikwad Vs Smt Narasamma

Shri B G Prakash Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri B G Prakash Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka by Crime

Gollal Shambholingappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Roopla Naik Vs Smt.Bhadrya Bai

Smt H T Leelavathi Vs Sri Ramegowda