The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9197 CRL.RP No. 1377 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1377 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANGAMMA W/O MUNIRAJ @ BHOR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT H.NO.105, TOOBARAHALLI, RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST, BANGALORE-560066 AND ALSO AT VAYATAKEL, MITTEGANAHALLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563114. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SMT. MANJULA L., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.118, CHARITHA CLASSIC APARTMENT, ATTACHED HOUSE, 1ST MAIN, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, TOOBARAHALLI, RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST, BENGALURU-560066. (BY SRI. THIPPESWAMY T., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9197 CRL.RP No. 1377 of 2021
Facts
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU (CCH- 74) IN CRL. APPEAL NO.25170/2018 BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 06.09.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LVII ACMM, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.51968/2017. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Legal Reasoning
contention of the revision petitioner having considered the document of Ex.P1 Cheque as well as service of notice and no reply was given and account statement was also marked as Ex.P10 and notarized copies are also marked as Ex.P11 to Ex.P14. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 will not comes to the aid of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.25170/2018. The First Appellate Court also while re-appreciating the material available on record, an observation is made in paragraph No.25 that the said Gowramma was not examined and ought to have examined to prove the case of the accused by placing preponderance of probabilities to show that there was a transaction between the accused and said Gowramma and the said Cheque was issued to the accused at the instance of the said Gowramma and also taken note of document Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 as well as the case of the complainant in paragraph Nos.27 and 28 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9197 CRL.RP No. 1377 of 2021 comes to the conclusion that what prevents the accused to examine the said Gowramma in support of her defense, nothing is placed before the Court to establish the said contention and accepted the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 3. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the transaction is between accused and also the complainant. The defense of the accused has not been accepted. The counsel also would contend that in terms of Ex.P8, the respondent clearly states that respondent received the retirement benefit of Rs.3,59,138/- only and having money of Rs.9,00,000/- to pay the same no such material is placed before the Court. It is also contended that during his cross-examination, the complainant produced the document of Ex.P10 which clearly shows that an amount of Rs.45,723/- is found and also the complainant has no capacity to pay the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- to the accused. The Trial Court also - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9197 CRL.RP No. 1377 of 2021 committed an error in coming to the conclusion of calculation of interest for a sum of Rs.3,10,500/- and direct him to pay the amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. The very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous and First Appellate Court also committed an error in accepting the reasons of the Trial Court and also submits that appellant bank transaction was closed in the year 2010 itself and only undue influence and coercion of the complainant and Gowramma, the accused issued the Cheque for a security to the amount received by the Gowramma from the complainant and these are the materials which have not been considered. 4. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that in order to prove the defense that amount was borrowed from Gowramma no documents are placed before the Trial Court except taking the defense and even not examined the said Gowramma and the same has been discussed in Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court and document Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 placed before the Trial Court not helpful - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9197 CRL.RP No. 1377 of 2021 to the accused and not committed any error in appreciating the same. Having heard the revision petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and also the grounds which have been urged in the revision petition and also submission made by the counsel for revision petitioner and respondent, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court are: 1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act and whether the First Appellate Court also committed an error in accepting the reasons of the Trial Court and whether this Court invoked the revisional jurisdiction having found any perversity in the finding of both the Courts? 2) What Order? 5. Having heard the revision petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent, it is specifically pleaded in the complaint that both of them are - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9197 CRL.RP No. 1377 of 2021 having acquaintance with each other from last 20 years and also specific case of complainant that the accused had approached the complainant on 10.04.2015 and requested to give a hand loan of Rs.9,00,000/- and also took time to repay the same within 9 months and on consistent demand issued the subject matter of Cheque dated 24.10.2016 and endorsement was issued that ‘account was closed’ when the same was presented and no dispute with regard to the issuance of Cheque is concerned and only contention was taken by the revision petitioner that availed the loan from Gowramma and not from this complainant and in order to substantiate the said contention, nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW1 that there was a transaction between Gowramma and this revision petitioner. Apart from that the said Gowramma was also not examined before the Trial Court. The counsel appearing for respondent brought to notice of this Court earlier also an attempt was made before this Court by filing Crl.P.No.6873/2020 when the challenge was made with regard to dismissal of I.A.No.4 filed before the First - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9197 CRL.RP No. 1377 of 2021 Appellate Court invoking Section 311 of Cr.P.C r/w Section 391 of Cr.P.C. This Court having observed that opportunity was given and the same was not utilized and dismissed the same. 6. Now, the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner also would contend that if matter is remanded going to examine the Gowramma and the said contention cannot be accepted already the prayer made before the First Appellate Court was turned down and the same is accepted by this Court dismissing the Crl.P.No.6873/2020 and hence, on that ground also the revision petitioner is not entitled for interference of this Court. The very reasoning given by the Trial Court also while awarding an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- is concerned as against the Cheque of Rs.9,00,000/- calculated the interest and added Rs.3,00,000/- in addition to the Cheque amount and when such reasoned order has been passed and also transaction is of the year 2015 almost a decade has been elapsed and when such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in direct him to pay the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9197 CRL.RP No. 1377 of 2021 compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- and in the absence of any perversity in finding of the Trial Court and when the defense was not proved and only defense was that he has availed the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from Gowramma and how the said Cheque has gone to the hands of complainant also not proved by the revision petitioner and when such being the case, in the absence of evidence of Gowramma, question of finding of any perversity does not arise. The First Appellate Court also in detail discussed in paragraph Nos.26 and 28 having re-assessed the material on record for not having examined Gowramma and when such being the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with findings to exercise the revisional jurisdiction since there is no any perversity in the finding of Trial Court and no plausible evidence is placed before the Trial Court in order to comes to a conclusion of preponderance of probability in favour of the petitioner and hence, I answer the point as ‘Negative’. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9197 CRL.RP No. 1377 of 2021 7. In view of the discussions made above I pass the following:
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. This revision petition is filed against the conviction and sentence in C.C.No.51968/2017 dated 06.09.2018 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act, imposing to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and compensation of Rs.12,12,000/- to the complainant and as against the confirmation order passed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.25170/2018 dated 22.10.2021. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9197 CRL.RP No. 1377 of 2021 2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court that both the complainant and accused are friends and known to each other from 20 years and accused approached for hand loan of Rs.9,00,000/-. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- was paid on 10.04.2015 and accused promised to repay the same within 9 months and did not repay the same and hence, issued the Cheque dated 24.10.2016 for an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- and when the same was presented, endorsement was issued that ‘account was closed’ and hence, legal notice was issued and no reply was given and thereafter complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty and hence, complainant got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. The accused though examined herself as DW1 and produced document Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 and defense set out by the accused before the Trial that she has borrowed the money from one Gowramma and not from the complainant and repaid the said amount to the Gowramma and Cheque - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9197 CRL.RP No. 1377 of 2021 which was issued to Gowramma was misused and false complaint is filed. The Trial Court did not accept the
Decision
ORDER The Revision Petition is dismissed. RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE