The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13823 CRL.RP No. 1390 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1390 OF 2016 BETWEEN: NARASIMHE GOWDA, S/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, KEB LINEMAN, MRS COLONY, SHIVAMOGGA- 577 201. (BY SRI. SAMEER S.N.,ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O 5TH CROSS, HOSAMANE EXTENSION, SHIVAMOGGA- 577 201. …PETITIONER
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI.MOHAN KUMAR T.,ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE JMFC-II COURT, SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.1379/2013 DATED 30.06.2015 WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY JUDGMENT OF IN CRL.A.NO.190/2015 DATED 06.10.2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT IN C.C.NO.1379/2013 PENDING BEFORE THE JMFC-II COURT, SHIVAMOGGA. III ADDL. S.J., SHIVAMOGGA THE THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13823 CRL.RP No. 1390 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER In this revision petition, the revision petitioner/accused has assailed the judgment dated 06.10.2016 passed by the Court of III Addl. Sessions Judge, Shivamogga (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.190/2015, wherein the First Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, II-Court, Shivamogga (for short 'the trial Court') in C.C.No.1379/2013 dated 30.06.2015. 2. Parties are referred to as per ranking before the trial Court. 3. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: The accused and the complainant were known to each other and the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant in the month of March, 2012 for his domestic purpose. To discharge the said liability, the accused issued post dated cheque bearing No.609639 drawn on Syndicate Bank, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13823 CRL.RP No. 1390 of 2016 Durgigudi Branch, Shivamogga dated 21.12.2012 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as per Ex.P1. When the complainant presented the said cheque through his banker, the same returned with an endorsement 'Insufficient funds'. The same was intimated to the accused by the complainant by issuing a legal notice dated 07.01.2013 as per Ex.P3. The said notice served to the accused on 09.01.2013. Despite, the accused failed to reply to the notice or to repay the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant filed the private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the N.I. Act') before the trial court. 4. In order to prove the case before the trial court, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 5 documents as Ex.P1 to P5. However, the accused neither examined any witness nor got marked any documents on his behalf. 5. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, as under: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13823 CRL.RP No. 1390 of 2016 "ORDER By virtue of powers vested under section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C., accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,10,000/-. In default to pay fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Further, by virtue of powers vested under section 357 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C., on recovery of fine amount, a sum of Rs.2,000/- shall be defrayed to the State towards prosecution expenses. By virtue of powers vested under section 357 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C., on recovery of fine amount, a as sum of Rs.3,08,000/- compensation to the complainant." shall be paid 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused approached the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.190/2015. The First Appellate Court after re-assessment of the entire evidence on record dismissed the appeal filed by the accused by confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 7. I have heard Sri. Sameer S.N., the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Mohan Kumar T., learned counsel for the respondent. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13823 CRL.RP No. 1390 of 2016 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused is that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred while convicting the accused without appreciating the evidence on record in right perspective. He further contended that the complainant failed to state the date of advancing loan amount. Further, the complainant admitted in her evidence that the accused had issued blank cheque as per Ex.P1 and she subsequently filled the same by mentioning an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. In such circumstances, there arises a doubt in respect of alleged transaction as claimed by the complainant. He also contended that the complainant failed to prove her lending capacity. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record, passed a well-reasoned judgments which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He further contended that, despite receiving the legal notice, the accused neither failed to put forth his defence by replying to the legal notice nor adduced any evidence to disprove the case of the complainant. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13823 CRL.RP No. 1390 of 2016 Hence, the evidence of PW.1-complainant remained unchallenged. As such, both the Courts below rightly passed the judgments. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 10. I have given my anxious consideration on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties so also perused the materials and evidence placed before me. As could be gathered from the records, the issuance of the cheque in question by the accused to the complainant is undisputed. The signature on the cheque-Ex.P1 is also not in dispute. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the accused failed to reply the legal notice sent by the complainant, despite receiving the same. During the course of evidence, the defence put forth by the accused was that the complainant failed to mention the exact date of lending the loan amount. However, on perusal of the complaint it is stated by the complainant that in the first week of March, 2012, the complainant advanced the loan amount and the said loan amount was advanced by way of cheque. Such being the position, hand loan advanced by the complainant to the accused is not in dispute. The other defence raised by the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13823 CRL.RP No. 1390 of 2016 accused that the cheque was subsequently filled by the complainant. As per Section 20 of the N.I. Act, the issuance of the signed cheque gives authority to the holder thereof to make or complete the same. Hence, the said contention of the accused does not hold much water. No doubt, initial presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttal one. Nevertheless, it is a settled position of law that such initial presumption can be rebutted only by placing a probable defence. In the case on hand, the accused failed to put forth such probable defence. Such being the position, I am of the considered view that both the Courts below have rightly passed the judgments which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The Criminal Revision petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28