The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9196 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 467 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 483 OF 2021 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 467 OF 2021 IN CRL.RP No. 483/2021: BETWEEN: 1. SRI. GYANCHAND BHATIA @ GYANCHAND BANITA S/O BHATIA, AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.2, TULSI APARTMENT PARK ROAD, TULASI THOTA BENGALURU - 560053 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. GANGADHAR, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. SRI. AVINAS P.B. S/O P.F. BABU AGED ABUOT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.94, KANAKANAGARA 10TH CROSS ‘E’ BLOCK R.T. NAGARA POST BENGALURU - 560032 (BY SRI. B.V.MOHAN ADEKAR, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9196 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 467 of 2021 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.02.2021 PASSED BY THE LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.25137/2020
Legal Reasoning
CONFIRMING THE CONVICTION ORDER OF JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 18.08.2020 PASSED BY THE XIV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.55925/2019 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP. IN CRL.RP NO. 467/2021: BETWEEN:
Legal Reasoning
1. SRI. GYANCHAND BHATIA @ GYANCHAND BANITA S/O BHATIA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.2, TULSI APARTMENT PARK ROAD, TULASI THOTA BENGALURU - 560053 (BY SRI. GANGADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: ...PETITIONER 1. SRI. AVINAS P.B., S/O P.F. BABU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.94, KANAKANAGARA 10TH CROSS ‘E’ BLOCK R.T. NAGARA POST BENGALURU - 560032 (BY SRI. B.V.MOHAN ADEKAR, ADVOCATE) ...RESPONDENT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9196 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 467 of 2021 JUDE, THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE LEARNED LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL COURT AND SESSIONS IN CRL.A.NO.25138/2020 DATED 17.02.2021 CONFIRMING CONVICTION ORDER OF JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEANRED XIV ACMM, BANGLAORE IN C.C.NO.53829/2019 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 18.08.2020 AND ACQUIT THE REVISION PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION. BANGALORE (CCH-73) THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. These two revision petitions are taken up together for consideration, since complainant and the accused are one and the same in both the matters and the offence invoked against the revision petitioner is under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 3. These two revision petitions are filed against conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner in C.C.Nos.55925/2019 and 53829/2019 dated 18.08.2020 and confirmation order passed by the First Appellate Court - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9196 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 467 of 2021 in Crl.A.Nos.25137/2020 and 25138/2020 dated 17.02.2021. 4. The factual matrix of case of the complainant in C.C.No.55925/2019 is that accused approached the complainant and requested to lend loan of Rs.8,00,000/- in the month of March, 2016 for his daughter’s marriage and other family commitments. The complainant accordingly arranged the money from his friends and gave loan amount and accused availed the loan amount in cash promising to repay the same within 6 to 8 months. But, when demand was made to repay, he kept on evading the complainant for two years on one or the other pretext. When the complainant consistently demanded the money, in the month of February 2019, in discharge of debt and liability, the accused issued four Cheques bearing Nos.000013, 000014, 000015 and 000016 dated 10.05.2019 for Rs.1,00,000/- each and the same are dishonoured. So also in other case in C.C.No.53829/2019, the accused issued two Cheques bearing Nos.000011, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9196 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 467 of 2021 000012 dated 02.03.2019 for Rs.1,00,000/- each towards repayment and the same are also dishonoured. Hence, these two criminal revision petitions are filed i.e., one case in respect of four Cheques for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each i.e., Rs.4,00,000/- and another case in respect of two Cheques for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- and in total six Cheques were presented and the same were dishonoured. Hence, legal notice was issued and reply is given stating that amount was repaid to the father of the complainant and subsequent to death of father of the complainant, he has paid the remaining amount to mother of the complainant and also the complainant, but he did not repay the amount and complaint was filed and cognizance was taken by the Trial Court and secured the accused and he did not plead guilty and hence, trial was commenced in both the cases in C.C.No.55925/2019 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P24 are marked. In Crl.A.No.25138/2021, C.C.No.53829/2019 got marked the document Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. On the other hand the defense examined one witness as DW1 and got marked the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9196 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 467 of 2021 document Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. The Trial Court having considered the material on record accepted the case of the complainant and not accepted the defense of the accused. In respect of two Cheques is concerned, sentenced to pay an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- and in respect of four Cheques is concerned, sentenced to pay an amount of Rs.4,60,000/-. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.25138/2020 as against C.C.No.53829/2019 and in respect of C.C.No.55925/2019 filed Crl.A.No.25137/2020 and in both the appeals, the First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record accepted the finding of the Trial Court and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, these two revision petitions are filed before this Court. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error. The alleged Cheques was not issued to any hand loan and respondent has not produced any single document for lending loan Rs.8,00,000/-. In spite of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9196 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 467 of 2021 discrepancies and contrary statements in the case, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court not appreciated the same. The counsel also during the course of his argument, would vehemently contend that when the complaint was given in the year 2018, question of issuance of these eight Cheques in the year 2019 does not arise. This fact has not been considered by the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence as well as First Appellate Court also committed an error while considering the material on record. The counsel also would vehemently contend that specific defense was taken that entire amount has been repaid by making the payment in favour of the father and also the mother as well as the complainant and for having repaid the amount not received any receipt. It the specific case of the revision petitioner that amount was repaid and these are the materials which have not been considered by the Trial Court. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9196 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 467 of 2021 5. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that issuance of Cheque is concerned not disputed the same and signature also admitted by the accused. The counsel also would vehemently contend that no document is placed for having repaid the amount either to the father or to the mother and the complainant and defense remains as defense and not produced any material to prove the contention of the accused. Both the Courts have not committed any error in accepting the case of complainant and it does not requires any interference of this Court. 6. Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the learned counsel for the respondent and also on considering the material on record, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court are: 1) Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate Court committed an error in accepting the case of the complainant and not accepting the case of the accused and whether it requires interference of this Court? - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9196 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 467 of 2021 2) What Order? 7. Having heard the respective counsels and also on perusal of the material available on record, the specific case of the complainant that the accused had approached the complainant to meet the family necessities has availed the loan of Rs.8,00,000/-. It is also the case of complainant that in order to repay the amount he took time, but he did not repay the amount on consistent demand and he has issued the Cheque. The accused also not disputes the very issuance of Cheque as well as the Cheque contains the signature, but only contention that amount was availed from the father and the same was repaid in part to the father and when the father died, repaid the amount in favour of the complainant as well as his mother. In order to substantiate that he has repaid the amount either to the father or to the mother or complainant no document is placed before the Court. However, relies upon the document of Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 that complaint was given to the Police and in the cross- - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9196 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 467 of 2021 examination he says came to know about the lodging of the complaint only in the month of January-2019. The counsel for the revision petitioner also would contend that once he came to know about lodging of complaint to the Police, question of issuance of Cheque in the year 2019 does not arise, but he categorically admits that Cheques are given to the father during his lifetime and the same is not disputed. Once he admits the issuance of Cheque in favour of the father when he demanded the Cheque as security and when he advanced the loan. The very contention of the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. The only defense raised by the accused before the Trial Court that the amount was repaid. I have already pointed out that for having repaid the amount nothing is placed on record, there is a force in the contention of the complainant’s counsel that the defense remains as defense since no material is placed before the Court. Once he admits that Cheques are issued as security and the fact that he availed the loan is also not disputed, but only contention that it was repaid and when such defense was - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9196 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 467 of 2021 taken that the same was repaid, no document is placed and when such admission is there with regard to the availing of loan and also repayment is concerned and only contention of the counsel that out of 8 Cheques, only 6 Cheques are presented, but the material available before the Court that in one case two Cheques are produced and in another case four Cheques are produced, but only six Cheques are before the Court in both the cases. When the similar evidences are before the Court and similar defense available before the Court and similar defense has taken for having received the money and repaid the same in the absence of any documentary proof for having repaid, the contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. However, the counsel during the course of argument also would contend that an amount of Rs.96,750/- was drawn by the complainant and the same is self Cheque and having he had drawn the money of Rs.96,750/- no document is placed that the complainant withdrew the money of self Cheque of the accused except placing the statement before this Court and statement also - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9196 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 467 of 2021 does not disclose with regard to the amount was drawn by the complainant and hence, this document also cannot be accepted and this document also not placed before the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court and when such being material available before the Court, this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction only any perversity in finding of the Trial Court. I have already pointed out that based on the evidence available on record, when the defense was taken that amount was repaid and nothing is placed on record. The very contention of revision petitioner that both the Courts have committed an error cannot be accepted and not found any perversity in finding since the defense which had been taken by the revision petitioner has not been placed by placing any cogent evidence before the Court. In the absence of any cogent evidence, question of exercising the revisional jurisdiction does not arise. Hence, I do not find any ground to allow the revision petition. Hence, I answer the point as ‘Negative’. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9196 CRL.RP No. 483 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 467 of 2021 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER Both the Revision Petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST,RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34