The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6899 CRL.RP No. 1140 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1140 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. NAGAPPA N., S/O BANDI KANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS STENOGRPAHER R/AT PWD QUARTERS, R.T.NAGAR BENGALURU-560020 (BY SRI. SAMEER S.N., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. N.H. OMPRAKASH S/O N.N. HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS LAB TECHNICIAN N.E.S. PHARMACY COLLEGE R/O KIRTHI NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-580028 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT M., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AS SHIVAMOGGA DATED 18.05.2021 THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE JMFC-II, SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.891/2016, DATED 20.05.2019. IN CRL.A.NO.129/2019 CONFIRMING - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6899 CRL.RP No. 1140 of 2021 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed challenging the order of enhancement made by the First Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the accused. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submits that in the judgment of Apex Court in case of Kalamani Tex and Anr V/s P.Balasumanian held that the respondent, nevertheless, cannot take advantage of the above cited principles so as to seek compensation. The record indicates that neither did the respondent ask for compensation before the High Court nor he has chosen to challenge the High Court’s judgment. Since, he has accepted the High Court’s verdict, his claim for compensation stands impliedly overturned. The respondent, in any case, is entitled to receive the Cheque amount of Rs.11.20 lakhs which the appellant has - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6899 CRL.RP No. 1140 of 2021 already deposited with the Registry of this Court. The main grievance of the revision petitioner is also in the absence of any appeal by the complainant, the First Appellate Court ought not to have enhanced the fine amount. 3. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court while enhancing the fine amount in paragraph No.22 of the judgment assigned the reasons for enhancement and hence, it does not requires any interference. 4. Having heard the revision petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court are: 1) Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error in enhancing the fine amount in the appeal filed by the accused without any appeal or revision as against the order of the Trial Court and whether it requires interference of this Court? 2) What Order? - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6899 CRL.RP No. 1140 of 2021 5. Having heard the respective counsels and also on perusal of material on record, the factual matrix of case of the complainant/respondent before the Trial Court that both of them are friends and accused has sought financial assistance for the domestic purpose to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- in the month of January-2011. The complainant has paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and he has also agreed to give back the same within a short period of six months and he did not repay the amount and hence, after lapse of one month that is in the first week of September-2011, the complainant again requested for repayment of amount and accused had issued the Cheque dated 07.09.2011 and when the same was presented, the same was dishonored and returned with an endorsement ‘Funds insufficient’ and he did not comply with the demand and hence cognizance was taken and he was secured before the Trial Court. The complainant in support of his case, examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On the other hand, the accused also examined - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6899 CRL.RP No. 1140 of 2021 himself as DW1 and not marked any document. The Trial Court having considered the material on record and also taking into note of the Cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.1,30,000/- and ordered to defray Rs.5,000/- to the State and remaining amount of Rs.1,25,000/- has to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, when the accused files an appeal before the appellate Court, the same was enhanced to the tune of Rs.2,05,000/- and hence the same was challenged before this Court. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner also that in the appeal filed by the accused, the First Appellate Court ought not to have granted the enhanced amount and admittedly there is no any appeal or revision filed by the complainant against the sentence and also for enhancement of the same on the ground that the fine amount ordered by the Trial Court is very meager. When there is no such appeal or revision by the complainant and that too in the appeal filed by the accused, the First Appellate Court ought not to have enhanced the same - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6899 CRL.RP No. 1140 of 2021 instead of that considered the reasons given by the Trial Court whether the same is in accordance with law or not considering the factual aspects as well as question of law and instead of committed an error in enhancing the same in the appeal filed by the accused and the same is erroneous and hence, it requires interference of this Court and the finding of the First Appellate Court is erroneous and same also suffers from legal infirmity and not inconsonance with the settled law that in an appeal filed by the accused, there cannot be enhanced sentence that too in the absence of any appeal or revision by the complainant. The counsel also relied upon the judgment referred supra and the same is also aptly applicable to the case on hand and hence it requires interference of this Court and I answer the point as ‘partly affirmative’ in coming to the conclusion that First Appellate Court committed an error. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6899 CRL.RP No. 1140 of 2021
Decision
ORDER i) The Revision Petition allowed in part. ii) The impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court modifying the fine amount enhancing the same to Rs.2,05,000/- is set- aside and order of the Trial Court is restored. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34