The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3701 CRL.RP No. 412 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 412 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. JEEVA S/O LATE SIDDANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS PROPRIETOR, G.L JOB WORKS, NO.55A, KAVERI NAGARA, LAGGERE, BANGALORE – 560 058. (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. SRI. RANGANATH S/O LATE DODDAKENCHAPPA AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.29/3, RAMESH BUILDING GROUND FLOOR , NEAR SIRI SCHOOL, LAGGERE, PEENYA POST, BANGALORE – 560 058. (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3701 CRL.RP No. 412 of 2024 AND SESSIONS THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 25.01.2024 PASSED BY LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL IN CRL.A.NO.1047/2021 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE 1ST APPELLATE COURT AND CONSEQUENTLY TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 10.11.2021 PASSED BY THE XX ACMM, BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.1449/2019 AND TO ACQUIT THE ACCUSED. BENGALURU JUDGE, THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.1449/2020 dated 10.11.2021 passed by the XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru confirming in Crl.A.No.1047/2021 on the file of LVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court that the revision petitioner/accused - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3701 CRL.RP No. 412 of 2024 had availed amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant by way of cash and Cheque for his financial commitments and agreed to repay the same within six to eight months and even after completion of the said period, accused did not return the money as agreed and after several demands, he had issued the Cheques dated 29.11.2018 and the same was presented before the bank and the said Cheque was dishonored and returned with an endorsement ‘Funds insufficient’ and hence legal notice was issued and not complied with the demand notice. Hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. The complainant in order to prove his case examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On the other hand, accused/revision petitioner has not examined any witness and not produced any document though he was examined as DW1. The Trial Court having considered the material on record that Cheque belongs to him and also belongs to his account and also Cheque is not disputed. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that complainant has proved the fact that the revision petitioner has borrowed an amount - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3701 CRL.RP No. 412 of 2024 of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and not lead any evidence of preponderance probabilities and convicted and sentenced him to pay Rs.1,30,000/- out of payable Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant and remaining Rs.5,000/- vest with the State. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.NO.1047/2021 was filed and the First Appellate Court also having considered the both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the complainant has proved essential ingredients of Section 138 of N.I Act and no rebuttal evidence as provided under Section 139 of N.I Act and also for creation of document, nothing is placed on record by adducing any defense evidence and signature of the Cheque is not disputed and also with regard to the misusing of the Cheque is concerned, no complaint was given and hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3701 CRL.RP No. 412 of 2024 5. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the Trial Court fails to consider the material on record particularly the defense is that he has received only an amount of Rs.22,500/- in terms of Ex.P6 and the same was repaid, but contend that remaining amount was paid by way of cash and in order to prove the fact that for having paid cash also no material is placed before the Court. The counsel also contend that legal notice was returned unserved and complainant failed to prove the service of legal notice. Even First Appellate Court also failed to take note of all these factors into consideration and mechanically proceeded to confirm the order of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has not drawn any adverse inference to non-examination of eye witness, but both the Courts below fails to consider the same. In order to prove the fact that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was received in total, no material is placed and hence it requires interference of this Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3701 CRL.RP No. 412 of 2024 6. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the case of complainant was proved by placing the document of Cheque as well as notice was issued. The counsel also would vehemently contend that bank account statement also produced for having made the payment of Rs.22,500/- in terms of the loan and remaining amount is paid by way of cash. The Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that presumption could be drawn under Section 139 of N.I Act and so also when the material is placed on record, no probable defense on the side of the revision petitioner and only contention was taken that Cheque was misused. In order to prove the fact that issued Cheque was misused also no complaint has given and the same has been appreciated and in the absence of any preponderance of probability of the revision petitioner, question of interfering by exercising the revisional jurisdiction does not arise. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3701 CRL.RP No. 412 of 2024 7. Having heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent and also having perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is the case of the complainant that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was lent by way of Cheque and cash. The Cheque amount of Rs.22,500/- was given in terms of the Ex.P6 which evidence the fact that amount was paid by way of Cheque and remaining amount was paid by way of cash. Though he contend that he repaid the amount, nothing is placed on record. 8. having heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the learned counsel for the respondent and also the grounds urged in the revision petition as well as material on record, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court: 1) Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing and confirming the order of conviction and sentence whether - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3701 CRL.RP No. 412 of 2024 it requires interference of this Court by exercising the revision jurisdiction? 2) What Order? 9. The First Appellate Court also rightly considered the material on record since the Cheque was admitted and legal notice was also issued through certificate of posting and RPAD and though registered post returned with an endorsement, same was not served and certificate of posting was served and the same was not disputed in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and not lead any defense evidence. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent, it is not in dispute that Cheque was given in terms of the Ex.P1 and the fact that notice was also issued, but postal receipt was produced to show that notices are sent through certificate of posting and also registered post and also the fact that registered letter sent to the accused was returned and the certificate of posting was served on him - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3701 CRL.RP No. 412 of 2024 and during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, not disputed the any issuance of the notice as well as the Cheque and only contention was taken that an amount of Rs.22,500/- was duly taken and not received any cash amount and for no answer for what made him to give a Cheque to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and also not led any defence evidence and only contention is that the Cheque was misused. Even with regard to the misusing of Cheque also no complaint was given and all the factors were taken note of by the Trial Court and also even drawn the presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act since there is no any rebuttal as against the evidence of complainant and even revision petitioner is not stepped into the witness box to read probable defence of misusing of the Cheque and if really if it is a misusing of Cheque, ought to have adduced defence evidence. Even in the cross-examination of PW1, nothing is elicited in misusing of cheque. There is no any rebuttal evidence of the revision petitioner when the presumption was drawn in terms of Section 139 of N.I Act. Both the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court taken - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3701 CRL.RP No. 412 of 2024 note of said fact into consideration that there is no any rebuttal evidence and also there is no any preponderance of probability. When such materials are appreciated by Trial Court and First Appellate Court, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts unless the evidence available on record not properly considered by both the Courts, if finding is not legal, then only Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction or otherwise question of exercising the revisional jurisdiction does not arise. However, taking into note of Cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- but Trial Court ordered to pay an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- since Cheque was issued in the year 2018 and case was disposed of in the year 2021 and only an amount of Rs.30,000/- as addition to the Cheque amount was ordered and also Rs.5,000/- ordered to defray to the State. Having taken note of the said fact into consideration, I do not find any error in the order of the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court and even on sentence is also concerned and no ground is made to exercise revisional jurisdiction. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:3701 CRL.RP No. 412 of 2024 11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52