Smt Veena Prabhakar Vs Smt Uma

SMT UMA, W/O C SATHYANARAYANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,TAILORING WORKER, R/AT WARD NO.1, OPP. APMC, JAYANAGAR, MANVI TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584123.

¶13

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

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI PRAKASH REDDY T.C,ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 0103.2025 IN CRL. APPEAL NO.990/2022 PASSED BY THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53), AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2022 IN C.C.NO.9761/2021 PASSED BY THE 12^TH ADDITIONAL AND A.C.M.M., BANGALORE (SCCH-8).

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:35773 CRL.RP No. 742 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Petitioner/accused is convicted for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'Act, 1881'). The cheque for Rs.1.00 lakh issued by the petitioner was dishonoured and the Trial Court and the Appellate Court concluded that the cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt. Accused did not lead any rebuttal evidence.

¶24

The complainant initiated a prosecution on the premise that cheque issued by the petitioner/landlord towards repayment of the security deposit is dishonoured. Out of Rs.3,50,000/-, landlord had repaid Rs.2,50,000/- in cash and balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by issuing cheque. The said cheque was dishonoured. Petitioner/landlord submits that she has repaid the entire amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. However, the cheque which was issued to the tenant as a security, for the deposit is misused.

¶25

The admitted factual position is the cheque belongs to the petitioner/landlord. The signature on the cheque is not in

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35773 CRL.RP No. 742 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

dispute. The petitioner/landlord to substantiate her contention that the entire amount of Rs.3,50,000/- is repaid has not led any evidence. She has not subjected herself for the crossexamination. Hence, both the Courts have rightly held that the presumption available under Section 139 of the Act, 1881 is not rebutted and landlord herself has admitted the fact that she had received Rs.3,50,000/towards security deposit. The complainant/tenant admits the fact that she has received Rs.2,50,000/- and for remaining repayment of Rs.1,00,000/-, there is no evidence.

¶29

This Court does not find any error in the judgment passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. It is noticed that the Trial Court has imposed fine of Rs.1,30,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and in default six months simple imprisonment is ordered and Rs.5,000/- is defrayed towards the expenses incurred by the State.

¶30

This Court finds that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that six months simple

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:35773 CRL.RP No. 742 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

imprisonment is disproportionate considering the cheque amount. Hence, petition is to be allowed, in part.

¶35

The sentence awarding is Rs.1,30,000/- as fine is confirmed. It is stated that Rs.65,000/- is already deposited before the Trial Court and same shall be released in favour of the complainant/respondent. Balance amount of Rs.65,000/shall be paid to the complainant within four months from today.

¶36

In case the amount is not paid, petitioner/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months, instead of six months awarded by the Trial Court and Appellate Court.

¶37

Balance amount shall be deposited before the Trial

¶38

Court after due notice to the complainant.

¶39

Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in-part, as indicated above, by reducing the sentence to three months simple imprisonment instead of six months simple imprisonment, in the event of not paying fine amount within four months from today.

¶40

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶41

BRN/ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19

Smt Veena Prabhakar v. Smt Uma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Veena Prabhakar v. Smt Uma

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

Smt. Fouziya Shareef Vs Umesh Gowda. K.

Smt. v Geetha Vs Sri Aravinda Kumar R S

Chandrappa Alias Chandappa.R.Poojary Vs Shri Ganesh Engineering and Enterprises

Puttappa Vs Madappa

Sri. Mahesh Kumar. K.R. Vs Smt. Latha

Sri. L. Janardhana Vs Sri. K. N. Chandrashekara