The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15519 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 475 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI SRINIVASAGOWDA S/O KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/AT HOUSE NO. 479 VIJAYANAGAR 1ST PHASE, BEHIND CORPORATION BANK, MYSURU - 570 001. (BY SRI. PRAKASH M PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka SRI THIPPEGOWDA S/O HUTCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT SEETHAPURA VILLAGE CHINAKURULI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 573 414 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED IN - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15519 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2020 CRL.A.NO.5017/2019 DATED 20.01.2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.138 OF NI ACT, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT THE SRIRANGAPATNA) CONVICTION AND SENTENCE THAT THE PETITIONER TO PAY A FINE OF RS.13,74,000/- IN C.C.NO.1036/2018 IN DEFAULT TO SUFFER SI FOR 6 MONTHS, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., PANDAVAPURA AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION.
Legal Reasoning
CONFIRMING THEREBY AND THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER This petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C, is by the accused challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act imposed by the trial Court, which came to be confirmed by the Sessions Court by dismissing the appeal filed by him. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. Complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the accused alleging that towards - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15519 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2020 re-payment of hand loan of Rs.13,64,000/- accused issued two cheques i.e, cheque dated 07.08.2007 for Rs.8,64,000/- and dated 07.09.2007 for Rs.5,00,000/-. However, when presented for realisation, they were returned dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. On the directions of the accused, complainant re-presented them. However, on the second time also, they were returned dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Complainant got issued legal notice dated 05.11.2007. Despite due service of the notice, the accused has neither paid the amount nor sent any reply and hence the complaint. 4. Accused appeared through counsel and disputed the allegations made against him by pleading not guilty. 5. In order to prove the allegations against accused, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and relied upon Exs.C1 to 15. 6. During the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has denied incriminating evidence lead against him. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15519 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2020 7. In fact, he has also given evidence as DW-1 and relied upon Exs.D1 to 10. 8. The trial Court rejected the defence of the accused. In the light of the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the N.I Act and the evidence led by the complainant, the trial Court convicted accused. 9. Accused challenged his conviction and sentence before the Sessions Court by way of appeal. It also came to be dismissed. 10. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the trial Court and Sessions Court, accused has come up with this revision contending that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court are contrary, arbitrary and not maintainable either in law or on facts. Both Courts have erred in appreciating the evidence placed on record. They have also failed to appreciate the citations relied upon by the accused. They - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15519 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2020 have failed to appreciate that the cheque in question belongs to S.K.Sreenivasa and company, but the company is not made as party. In the absence of the company, complaint cannot be proceeded against accused and hence the petition.
Legal Reasoning
11. In support of his arguments learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: (i) B.Girish Vs. S.Ramaiah (Girish)1 (ii) Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited (Aneeta Hada)2 (iii) Anil Gupta Vs. Star India Private Limited and Anr. (Anil Gupta)3 (iv) Ramdas S/o Khelu Naik Vs,. Krishnanand S/o Vishnu Naik (Ramdas)4 12. On the other hand learned counsel for complainant supporting the impugned judgment and order submitted that the loan in question was availed by the accused in his personal capacity and the cheques in question are standing in the name of proprietorship
Decision
ORDER 1. Petition filed by the accused under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15519 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2020 2. The impugned judgment and order dated 26.03.2019 in CC.No.1036/2018 on the file of Prl.Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Pandavapura and judgment and order dated 20.01.2020 in Crl.A.No.5017/2019 on the file of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (Sitting at Srirangapatna) are hereby confirmed. 3. The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records as well as Sessions Court records along with copy of this order forthwith. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52