The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3145 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.37 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. J.C. CHANGAPPA S/O LATE CHEEYANNA J K AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT 8/12, SRI LGGUTHAPPA MANE BEGIHALLI, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, JIGANI POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE 560105 (BY SRI SURESH SUBBAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SRI K H PUTTARAJU S/O LATE HONNASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT RAMAMANDIR ROAD, OLD GURUKULA SCHOOL BUILDING KIDUR TOWN AND VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, RAMAMANAGAR DISTRICT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE APPELLANT COURT LXIV ADDL. CITY …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3145 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2024 CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY DATED 01.12.2023 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.182/2021 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Inspite of service of notice, the respondent did not choose to appear before this Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission and the matter is heard on merits. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court that the accused had
Legal Reasoning
approached the complaint in the first week of March 2017 and requested for hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/- for his legal and family necessities. Complainant considering the request of the accused, paid the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on 13.03.2017 and accused agreed to repay the same within six months and after the lapse of six months, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3145 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2024 accused had not repaid the amount and on demand, the accused issued a Cheque towards repayment of the loan amount and on instructions of the accused, the said Cheque was presented and the same was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and hence, notice was issued and same was served and inspite of service of notice, the accused has not given any reply or repaid the amount. Hence, complaint was filed. 4. The Trial Court also taken the cognizance of the offence and secured the accused and when the accused did not plead guilty, proceeded for the trial. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P8. On the other hand, accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D9. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the documents which have been produced before the Court is very clear that Cheque was signed by the accused - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3145 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2024 and notice was also served on him but he has not replied to the said notice and also the complainant stated that he came to know that the accused through his wife since he used to do the saree business. It is also taken note of the fact that accused also admitted about the acquaintance with the complainant. In the evidence accused, he stated that in the course of business, complainant approached the wife for sale of the saree and the complainant was agreed to hand over stocks in the credit facilities for that complainant and contend that Cheque was given as security for the business of his wife and no transaction was taken place of hand loan as contended by the complainant. Accused in support of his defence marked Ex.D1 to D9 and these receipts do not disclose any loan transaction existing between wife of the accused and the complainant. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that though the accused raised many defences, but failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act by leading credible evidence and convicted the accused and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3145 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2024 sentenced to pay fine of Rs.4,10,000/- as against the Cheque amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.187/2021 and the First Appellate Court also having taken note of the fact that no dispute with regard that the Cheque belongs to the accused. When, the said Cheque was presented, same was dishonoured and legal notice also served and not replied to the said notice. The First Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that the document at Ex.D1 to D9 placed before the Court evidences the fact that there is only saree business between wife of the accused as well as complainant. When the accused admits that Cheque belongs to the bank account maintained by him, it bares the signature and also admits the issuance of the Cheque, Section 20 of the N.I. Act comes into operation and the provision empowers the holder in due course to complete the inchoate Negotiable Instrument/Cheque. The First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the only - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3145 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2024 contention taken that the Cheque which was issued in favour of the complainant was misused and filed the false complaint, but no cogent material is placed to show that the said Cheque was given only for the purpose of security. Thus, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence and confirmation, the present petition is filed. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court that both the Courts committed an error in appreciating the material available on record. But the fact that the complainant know the accused through his wife while doing saree business at police quarters. It is admitted by the complainant with regard to the saree business between the wife of the accused and the complainant. The counsel submits that the complainant was not having the source and means to pay the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The complainant in his complaint at Ex.P1, legal notice at Ex.P6 and affidavit filed by way of his evidence not stated anything about the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3145 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2024 means and source and admitted that only Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/- income to the complainant and if that amount was deducted for personal expenses of family, no source of income. The counsel also contends that the complainant has not produced any documents for having advanced loan except the Cheque and admitted that no documents are obtained and these are the evidences are not considered by the Trial Court and the Trial Court committed an error. the counsel also would vehemently contend that Ex.P1 is also altered and no authorized signature of the executant of the Cheque and hence, prayed this Court to exercise the revisional jurisdiction.
Legal Reasoning
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material available on record, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court are? 1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner/accused and whether the First Appellate Court committed - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3145 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2024 an error in confirming the order of the Trial Court and whether it requires interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion that both orders of the respective Courts suffer from its legality and correctness? 2. What order? Point No.1: 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material available on record, it discloses that it is the case of the complainant that for the family necessities of the petitioner, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was advanced and agreed to repay the same within six months but he did not repaid the amount within six months and on demand, the accused issued a subject matter of the Cheque and on presentation of the said Cheque, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. It is important to note that notice was issued to the accused. The counsel for the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3145 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2024 petitioner submits that same was not served but the counsel for the complainant produced the document at Ex.P6 to show that the said document contains the signature of the petitioner and the counsel for the petitioner contends that said signature not belongs to the petitioner. It is important to note that when his signature is disputed by the petitioner, no step was taken to send the document to hand writing expert denying his signature on Ex.P6. 9. It is important to note that in the cross- examination of PW1, it is elicited that complainant used to visit the quarters for saree business and there he came to know about the accused through his wife. No doubt, there is an admission with regard to the fact that accused came to know him while doing saree business. The complainant also admits that though having paid the money, not obtained any document and only relied upon the Cheque at Ex.P1. It is important to note that a suggestion was made that in 2015, the subject matter of the Cheque was - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3145 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2024 obtained as a security and the said suggestion was categorically denied by the complainant and there is no admission with regard to having taken the same as security by the accused. No doubt, complainant admits that his wife name is Sarojamma but suggestion was made that his wife name is Damayanthi and the same was denied. It is admitted that there was a saree business between the complainant and wife of the accused. Though denied that amounts were paid through bank and confronted the documents of receipts and the same was marked as Ex.D1 to D9 and same is having made the payment by the wife of the accused. 10. The main contention of the petitioner counsel that there was a saree business between the wife of the accused and the complainant and defence was taken that said Cheque was given in connection with saree business. When DW1 examined before the Trial Court, even he denies the averments of his own chief evidence but admits that he has not given any such details to the counsel but - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:3145 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2024 admits the signature and admits the address mentioned in Ex.P6 and also admits that different address was given in the chief evidence and the same is written in manuscript and also admits that the address mentioned in Ex.P4 and P6 belongs to him but he claims that the said property was sold in January but not placed any documents in this regard. Apart from that even gone to the extent of filing of revision petition which is marked as Ex.P8 and Ex.P8 is a revision petition filed by the accused. The Court has to take note of the very conduct and demeanor of the petitioner when he himself denies the details mentioned in the chief evidence and also though contend that signature not belongs to him at Ex.P6, no step was taken. Apart from that when the complainant confronted the document of Ex.P8 that is revision petition filed by the petitioner himself, same is also denied. The document also placed to show that in respect of the very same address, notice was given but no reply was given. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:3145 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2024 11. The petitioner relies upon the documents at Ex.D1 to D9 and the complainant also not disputes the fact that there was a saree business between himself and the wife of the accused. When such averment is made by the complainant that he came to know about the accused through his wife while doing saree business with the wife of the accused, same cannot be a ground to comes to the conclusion that Cheque was not given in respect of any loan availed by the accused. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that once the Cheque was admitted and signature also admitted, the Court has to draw the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act and mere production of document of bank receipts having accused wife was having business of saree with the complainant, same cannot be considered as a plausible evidence to comes to the conclusion that there was no transaction between the accused and the complainant and there must be a preponderance of probabilities and though such defence was taken and same was denied by PW1 in the cross-examination and nothing is elicited from the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:3145 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2024 mouth of PW1 except doing the business with the wife of the accused and the very evidence given by the petitioner was contrary to his own records, the evidence of DW1 cannot be believed and he deposes false before the Trial Court and hence, his defence cannot be accepted unless cogent evidence is placed before the Court. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in convicting and sentencing the accused and only excess amount of Rs.10,000/- was ordered to pay the compensation as against the Cheque amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. When such being the material available on record, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court also given the reason while appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. When such being the case, the Court has to look into the legality and correctness in the orders of both the Courts while exercising the revisional jurisdiction and in order to reverse the order, I do not find any error and any perversity in the finding of both the Courts comes to other conclusion in exercising the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:3145 CRL.RP No. 37 of 2024 revisional jurisdiction and hence, the orders not suffer from any legality or correctness. Hence, no grounds are made out in this revision petition. Point No.2: 12. In view of discussions made above, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN