The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6400 CRL.RP No. 786 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 786 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. KRISHNAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. 2ND CROSS, MALAVAGOPPA, WARD NO.14, SHIVAMOGGA-577 301. (BY SRI. KARTHIK S. TAYUR, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. RANGASWAMY S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. HONAVILE, BIDRE POST, SHIVAMOGGA-577 222. (BY SRI. B.N.SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE IN C.C.NO.283/2018 DATED 26.12.2019 BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA AND JUDGMENT DATED 03.08.2020 IN CRL.A.NO.6/2020 BY THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6400 CRL.RP No. 786 of 2020
Legal Reasoning
between the complainant and the accused. Having perused the material on record, Trial Court comes to the conclusion that he pleads ignorance, suggestion putforth at any transaction of more than Rs.20,000/- should be done only through Cheque and also taken note of Ex.P1 where he is admitted that he says it was returned by the accused himself and all suggestion was putforth to the PW1 was denied and also taken note of the endorsement as well as Ex.P1 since Ex.P1 was not disputed and also when the defense was taken that Cheque was given to the one Varadaraju but categorically admits that he did not give any complaint for misusing of the Cheque and hence not accepted the defense theory and accepted the case of the complainant since no reply was given when the notice was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6400 CRL.RP No. 786 of 2020 served and only after thought defense was raised and Cheque was given to one Varadaraju and with regard to the Chit transaction is concerned, no documents are produced and hence, not accepted the case of the petitioner and hence convicted and sentenced to pay the fine amount. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.6/2020. The First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and having taken note of the same, drawn the presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act and even relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2019 SAR (Criminal) 548 (Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and another) referred the said judgment with regard to the presumption is concerned and also taken note of Section 118 and 139 of N.I Act and so also the judgment reported in 2016 L.J.1267 (Venkatesh Sadanand Pai V/s Mrs.Kanchan.A Kakodkar and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6400 CRL.RP No. 786 of 2020 another) with regard to section 269SS of Income Tax Act and so also the judgment of 2015 (5) Kar. L.J 472 (A.M.Govindegowda V/s B.V.Ravi) wherein also discussion was also made with regard to whether the accused has been able to establish his defense that he has not taken any loan and detail discussion was made referring certain judgment and in paragraph No.18 discussed the evidence of DW1 with regard to the defense that he had no transaction with complainant and having transaction with Varadaraju and re-appreciated that no complaint was given with regard to the misusing of Cheque as well as chit transaction is concerned, no documents are placed before the Court and comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any error. Being aggrieved by both the orders, present revision petition is filed before this Court. 5. The main contention of the counsel before this Court is with regard to the source of income of the complainant for having made the payment of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6400 CRL.RP No. 786 of 2020 Rs.2,00,000/- and also the specific contention that Cheque was given in favour of one Varadaraju in terms of the chit transaction and there was no any transaction between complainant and the accused. This aspect has not been considered by both the Courts. The counsel for the respondent would contend that the said defense was taken only after thought when the legal notice was issued and the same was served and no reply was given. Apart from that not disputes the very signature found in the Ex.P1 and defense theory has not been proved and no plausible evidence is placed before the Court. Hence, both the Courts have not committed any error and whether it requires any interference. 6. Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel for respondent and also in keeping the contention urged by the petitioner’s counsel and also the reply of the respondent, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court are: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6400 CRL.RP No. 786 of 2020 1) Whether both the Courts have committed an error in convicting and sentencing and the First Appellate Court committed an error in confirming the order and whether it requires interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction? 2) What Order? 7. Having heard the respective counsels and also on perusal of material, the complainant in support of his case, he examined himself as PW1. No doubt the counsel brought to notice of this Court answer given by the PW1 during the course of cross-examination with regard to source of income is concerned and he replied that he had sold the property and out of the said sale consideration, he paid the money. The fact that the petitioner issued the Cheque is not in dispute and only defense is taken that he gave the Cheque to one Varadaraju in connection with chit transaction and also when he subjected to cross- examination, he categorically admits that with regard to - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6400 CRL.RP No. 786 of 2020 the Cheque transaction is concerned, no document is available with him and not produced the same. Apart from that with regard to misusing of the Cheque by the complainant is concerned which was given to the Varadaraju also no complaint was given against the complainant or against the Varadaraju and when such reasons are given and Trial Court also appreciated the evidence of PW1 and also the DW1, the scope of revision is very limited and in the case on hand, when the defense was taken that the Cheque was given in favor of Varadaraju, the revision petitioner has to probabilize his case, unless he probabilize his case of chit transaction is concerned and when nothing is placed before the Court with regard to the Cheque transaction is concerned, no complaint was given against either complainant as against the Varadaraju and mere taking of defense is not enough. The Court has to look only into the material when perversity in finding of both the Courts while exercising the revisional jurisdiction and hence, I do not find any such perversity in the said finding. Both the Courts taken - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6400 CRL.RP No. 786 of 2020 note of ingredients of Section 118 as well as Section 139 of N.I Act. No doubt Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and having perused the material on record also in the cross-examination of PW1, nothing is elicited except the hand writing are in different inks other than the signature and the same cannot be a ground to disbelieve the case and no probable defense has been proved and specific defense that he was not having money and also transaction in connection with chit, nothing is placed on record and when such reasons are given by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court and unless the finding is not legal and if any orders suffers from any infirmity, then only Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction or otherwise Court cannot exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and exercise the revisional jurisdiction. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6400 CRL.RP No. 786 of 2020
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant/respondent before the Trial Court that the complainant and accused are well known to each other from past several years and with this acquaintance the accused approached the complainant in the month of January-2013 for hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to meet out his domestic needs and agreed to repay the same within 6 months with interest at the rate of 18% p.a by availing financial assistance from the bank. Believing the words of the accused the complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- in cash to the accused. The accused failed to repay the amount along with interest accrued thereon within assured time of 6 months. Whenever the complainant approached the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6400 CRL.RP No. 786 of 2020 accused and demanded to repay, the accused used to give lame excuses. Ultimately the accuse issued Cheque for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 28.06.2013 and when the same was presented, returned with an endorsement ‘Funds Insufficient’ and hence the complainant issued the legal notice to the accused and when the accused did not gave any reply and failed to repay the amount. Hence, complaint was filed and the Trial Court has taken the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act and secured the accused. The statement under Section 313 was recorded and the accused did not plead guilty and claims for trail. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he examination himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On the other hand, the accused examined as DW1, but not produced any documents on his behalf to prove his case. 3. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and also the answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 and DW1 and also - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6400 CRL.RP No. 786 of 2020 the petitioner did not disputes the signature available on Ex.P1 and hence invoked Section 118 and Section 139 of N.I Act and drawn the presumption and also comes to the conclusion that though he confused, raised two fold defenses that he was not having financial capacity and also second defense is that no financial transaction
Decision
ORDER The Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30