Smt Indira Vs Sri Manjunath

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13757 CRL.RP No. 83 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 83 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT INDIRA W/O B M GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.20, RANGADHAMA 9TH MAIN, SHANKAR NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE MARAPPANA PALYA WARD, BANGALORE - 560 096.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHETHAN E., ADVOCATE FOR

¶11

SRI. PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI MANJUNATH

¶14

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

S/O N SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT 553, 4TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, KAMALANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 079.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. VISWANATH SABARAD, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.01.2017 PASSED BY THE XIX A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.21570/2015 AND ALSO CONFIRMATION OF THE ORDER BY THE HON'BLE LXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALOE DATED 20.12.2017 IN

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:13757 CRL.RP No. 83 of 2018

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CRL.A.NO.133/2017 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Heard Sri.Chetan E., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.B.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Viswanath Sabarad, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶26

Accused who has suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in CC No.21570/2015 confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.133/2017 is the revision petitioner.

¶27

Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

¶28

3.1. A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of a cheque bearing No.001682 dated 15.04.2015 in a sum of

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13757 CRL.RP No. 83 of 2018

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Rs.1,50,000/- which was given by the accused towards repayment of the hand loan. Admittedly, said cheque was dishonored with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. There was no compliance to the callings of the legal notice and therefore, complainant sought for action.

¶32

Learned Trial Magistrate after completing necessary formalities, summoned the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.

¶33

In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record four documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.4 comprising of dishonored cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice and postal acknowledgement.

¶34

As against the said evidence, there is no defence evidence at all. Record also discloses that accused has failed to cross-examine P.W.1 as well despite granting sufficient opportunity.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:13757 CRL.RP No. 83 of 2018

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Left with no alternative, learned Trial Magistrate

¶39

heard the arguments of the parties in detail and convicted the accused and ordered to pay sum of Rs.2,05,000/- as fine amount of which sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State.

¶40

Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.133/2017.

¶41

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreication of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal by considered judgment dated 20.12.2017.

¶42

Thereafter, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition.

¶43

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that there was no sufficient opportunity granted to the accused for cross-examination of P.W.1.

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13757 CRL.RP No. 83 of 2018

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Therefore, the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶47

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments.

¶48

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

¶49

On such perusal of the material on record, in the first place, it was for the accused to lead the evidence or in order to cross-examine the complainant, should have filed an application under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶50

Indian Bank Association and Others v. Union of India and

¶51

Others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590 .

¶52

Accused failed to do so. In fact in order to establish the case, the complainant got examined himself and placed on record four documents.

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:13757 CRL.RP No. 83 of 2018

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

In the absence of any challenge to the statement

¶57

made by the complainant on oath, and in the absence of any defence evidence, presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stood unrebutted.

¶58

Therefore, the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference by this Court, in this revision petition.

¶59

Hence, the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed .

¶62

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶63

KAV CT:SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Smt Indira v. Sri Manjunath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Indira v. Sri Manjunath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mohammed Isak Vs the State by

Karnataka Lokayukta, Vs S.P.Nagaraju

Mr K Jayanna Vs State by Kadur Police

Manjunath @ Manja Vs State of Karnataka by

Ayaz M Vs K N Sudheendra

Sri P a Shashikumar Vs the State of Karnataka