The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17700 CRL.RP No. 1024 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1024 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI. S. SATHISH WRONGLY DESCRIBED AS N.SATHISH, S/O SRI. K. SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.20, "SAPTHAGIRI", 1st B CROSS, BANAGIRI NAGARA, BSK 3rd STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085. (BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. C. RAJKUMAR S/O CHIKKA BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.1, CANARA BANK COLONY BUS STOP, SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560 061. …PETITIONER (RESPONDENT-C RAJKUMAR SD) …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2014 IN PASSED BY THE XXII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU C.C.NO.32258/2009 LXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-66) IN CRL.A.NO.45/2015 BY ORDER DATED 22.04.2022 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
Legal Reasoning
AND CONFIRMED BY THE THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17700 CRL.RP No. 1024 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER In this revision petition, the petitioner assailed the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.45/2015 dated 22.04.2022 by the LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.32258/2009 dated 04.12.2014 by the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City (for short 'trial Court'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. 3. The abridged facts of the case are as under: The accused and the complainant are known to each other. In the month of March 2008, the accused approached the complainant and borrowed a hand loan of Rs.90,000/- with a promise to repay the same within six months. As such, the accused issued two post-dated cheques bearing No.209065 dated 08.10.2008 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and No.209064 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17700 CRL.RP No. 1024 of 2022 dated 01.10.2008 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., Jayanagara 7th Block Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant. On instructions, the complainant presented the said cheques for encashment, however, the same dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The said aspect was intimated to the accused by the complainant by causing a demand notice. The accused issued reply to the said notice denying the contents of the notice. As such, the complainant presented the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I.Act'). 4. To prove the case before the trial Court, the complainant himself examined as PW.1 and got marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. However, the accused examined himself as DW.1. 5. After assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted the accused and passed the following: "ORDER - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17700 CRL.RP No. 1024 of 2022 Acting u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.92,000/- (Rupees Ninety Two thousand Only). If fine is realized, pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- (ninety thousand only) to the complainant as compensation, the same shall be paid to him within the period of 30 days. The rest of the amount Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand only) is ordered to be adjusted to the State Exchequer. In default of payment of this compensation amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for Six months." 6. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.45/2015. The First Appellate Court, after re-assessment of the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 7.
Legal Reasoning
I have heard Sri Rameshchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17700 CRL.RP No. 1024 of 2022 8. Though the respondent served, he remained unrepresented. 9. The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred while convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act without appreciating the evidence on record in a right perspective. He further contended that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court totally failed to appreciate the probable defence put forth by the accused that the complainant is totally a stranger to him and at no point of time, the complainant lent hand loan to him. To substantiate the said defence, the accused led his defence evidence as DW.1. Thus, he rebutted the initial presumption with a probable defence. This aspect was not properly considered by the trial Court and First Appellate Court. Further, according to him, the complainant has not complied the statutory requirements as contemplated under the provisions of N.I. Act by issuing a statutory notice. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17700 CRL.RP No. 1024 of 2022 10. The respondent served and remained unrepresented. 11. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the materials on record. 12. As could be gathered from the records, the cheques in question-Ex.P1 and P2 and the signatures of the accused on those are not seriously disputed by the accused. The defence put forth by the accused in his evidence that, the complainant is totally stranger to him and he obtained loan of Rs.60,000/- from one Lakshman and for the security of the said loan, he issued the cheques in question in the year 2008. Despite repayment of the loan amount to said Lakshman, he misused the said cheques through the complainant. Surprisingly, in the reply notice-Ex.P9, the accused has taken a different stand and stated that the complainant himself advanced Rs.60,000/- to him and received the cheques in question for security. Despite repayment of the loan amount, the complainant himself misused the said cheques. Thus, the defences taken by the accused are contradictory to each other. Albeit, the accused failed to place any documents to substantiate his defence. In - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17700 CRL.RP No. 1024 of 2022 that view of the matter, it can be construed that the defence taken by the accused is not a probable one to rebut the initial presumption. No doubt, the initial presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, such presumption can be rebutted only by placing a probable defence. In the case on hand, the accused failed to rebut the initial presumption by placing a probable defence. 13. Though the learned counsel for the accused argued that the legal notice issued by the complainant to the accused is a defect notice since the same was addressed to one Sathish.N, whereas the correct name of the accused is S.Sathish. However, the said notice served to the accused as per postal endorsement-Ex.P8 and reply notice has been caused by the accused counsel to the complainant as per Ex.P9. In such circumstance, I find no substantial force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused. However, considering the fact and circumstance of the case, though the revision petition lacks merits, I deem it appropriate to extend three months time to the accused to deposit the fine amount imposed by the trial - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17700 CRL.RP No. 1024 of 2022 Court which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. The revision petition is dismissed. ii. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court is upheld. iii. The revision petitioner/accused shall deposit the fine amount (including the fine amount already deposited if any) before the trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. iv. Bail bond executed by the accused shall stands cancelled. v. Registry is directed to send back the records to the concerned Court along with certified copy of this order forthwith. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35