R. Manjunath Vs Satyeppa

R. MANJUNATH S/O R. HULAGAPPA, AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINES, R/O. NEAR GALEMMA TEMPLE, GANGAMATH SAMAJ, DAM ROAD, KABBER STREET, HOSPETH, TQ. HOSPETH, DIST. BALLARI-583201.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SATYEPPA S/O YAMANAPPA HOSAMANI, AGE:69 YEARS, OCC: RETD. KAS OFFICER, R/O. LAXMI NIVAS GYANG BAWADI, NEAR BANDHI SCHOOL, VIJAYAPUR-586103

¶17

(BY SRI D.P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W S.401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 01.04.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR, IN CRL.APPEAL NO.12/2018 DISMISSING THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 02.02.2018 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-IV COURT VIJAYAPURA IN C.C.NO.2487/2015 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.138 OF N.I.ACT.

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3286 CRL.RP No. 200044 of 2019

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

¶27

Heard Sri R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri D.P.Ambekar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶28

Accused who suffered an order of conviction dated 02.02.2018 in C.C.No.2487/2015 on the file of the V Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC-IV, Vijayapura, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act wherein, as against cheque amount of Rs.6,00,000/- accused was directed to pay Rs.7,26,000/- as fine, of which Rs.7,20,000/was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.6,000/- was ordered to be paid towards defraying expenses of the State, confirmed in CrlA.No.12/2018 dated 01.04.2019 on the file of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, is the Revision Petitioner.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3286 CRL.RP No. 200044 of 2019

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Facts in a nutshell which are necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

¶33

A private complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, inasmuch as he had borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant for purchase of rice in bulk. Towards repayment of the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, cheque came to be issued which on presentation came to be dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’.

¶34

Legal notice came to be issued demanding payment of the amount covered under the cheque. Same is served on 26.07.2014. When there was no compliance to the callings of the notice despite service, complainant had approached the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking necessary action.

¶35

On completion of necessary formalities and after due trial, accused came to be convicted and sentenced as referred to supra.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3286 CRL.RP No. 200044 of 2019

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Learned Trial Magistrate took into consideration the presumption available to the complainant which is not rebutted by the accused by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record and therefore, convicted the accused.

¶40

Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.12/2018.

¶41

The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of both sides and dismissed the appeal on merits.

¶42

Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court.

¶43

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that the oral testimony of accused who is examined as D.W.1 has not been properly considered by the learned Trial Magistrate which was sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3286 CRL.RP No. 200044 of 2019

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Therefore, sought for allowing the petition and dismissal of the criminal complaint.

¶48

He also contended that legally recoverable debt is not proved by the complainant by placing necessary material evidence on record. Therefore the impugned judgments are liable to be set-aside.

¶49

Per contra, Sri D.P.Ambekar, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment contending that there is a suggestion to P.W.1-complainant that the cheque was given as security. Therefore, issuance of cheque and signature found therein are that of the accused, is not in dispute.

¶50

He would further contend that it is now settled principles of law that even cheque which is issued towards security, covers the legally recoverable debt and therefore, the contention urged on behalf of the accused is rightly rejected by the learned Trial Magistrate and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶51

Having heard both sides, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously.

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3286 CRL.RP No. 200044 of 2019

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

On such perusal of the material on record, it is found that Ex.P.1 cheque is belonging to accused who is a business man and knows the consequences of parting away of signed blank cheque.

¶55

According to the complainant, accused approached him for hand loan in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for purchase of rice in bulk quantity to be sold in public market. Believing the words of the accused, complainant lent a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and towards repayment, cheque came to be issued by the accused.

¶56

Learned Trial Magistrate, taking note of the principles of law enunciated in various judgments with regard to presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, noted that the suggestion made to P.W.1 that cheque was issued towards security is not probablized by the accused by placing any documentary evidence on record.

¶57

It is also pertinent to note that the oral testimony of the accused is nothing but self serving testimony without there being any plausible proof thereof, which is not sufficient enough

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3286 CRL.RP No. 200044 of 2019

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

to dislodge the presumption available to the complainant under

¶62

Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶63

Insofar as lending capacity is concerned, complainant being a KAS Officer and in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain vs. Ajay Singh reported in (2023)10 SCC 148 cheque marked at Ex.P.1 which is dishonoured for want of sufficient funds did carry presumption as to legally recoverable debt. Therefore, Order of conviction needs no interference.

¶64

Having said thus, as against cheque amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, sum of Rs.7,26,000/- is ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate. Transaction is of the year 2014 and the conviction order came to be passed in February 2018. Therefore, imposition of compensation amount is justifiable.

¶65

But sum of Rs.6,000/- ordered to be paid as fine towards defraying expenses of the State needs interference by this Court in this revision petition, inasmuch as, the lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved.

¶66

8 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3286 CRL.RP No. 200044 of 2019

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.

¶72

(ii) While maintaining conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, fine of Rs.7,26,000/ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court is reduced to Rs.7,20,000/-.

¶73

(iii) Entire sum of Rs.7,20,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. Time is granted till 20^th July 2025 to pay the balance amount. Failure to pay the balance fine amount, accused shall undergo imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate.

¶74

(iv) Rs.6,000/ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court towards defraying expenses of the State is hereby set-aside.

¶75