The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4728 CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1343 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. MANJUNATH @ MARIVE KEMPANNA, S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT KEREKODI ROAD, WARD NO.03, CHIKKABALLAPURA ROAD, VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562125. (BY SRI. SAMUEL S. DANDIN, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. M/S. MAXWORTH REALITY INDIA LTD.,
Legal Reasoning
paid in favour of the revision petitioner. Having considered the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4728 CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2021 document of Ex.P.3 with regard to drawing of the money from M/s. Max Siddhanth Properties for having made the payment and also issued cheque and though such defence was taken that no liability, but not stepped into the witnesses box to rebut the evidence of the complainant. When the cheque was issued, there is a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and no doubt, Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the same has to be rebutted. When the cheque is placed before the Court and other documentary evidence of bank transaction are also placed on record and notice was issued to him and the same was served and in the absence of probable defence by the petitioner, the very contention that both the Courts committed an error cannot be accepted. The fact that P.W.1 is one of the Director of M/s. Max Siddhanth Properties is not in dispute. The documentary evidence placed before the Court with regard to having made the payment is concerned is not rebutted and no plausible evidence is placed before the Court except the denial and even not examined himself before the Court to prove his defence. When such being the case, in the absence of any rebuttable evidence, the question of interfering does not arise. No grounds are made out to admit the revision petition. In the cross- - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4728 CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2021 examination of P.W.1 also nothing is elicited with regard to the defence is concerned. It is settled law that if any effective cross-examination is made and answer is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1, no need of leading of rebuttable evidence. But in the case on hand, no answer is elicited doubting the case of the complainant and also no rebuttable evidence. 6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
Arguments
NO.22/1, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, NEAR SHIVANANDA CIRCLE, NEHRU NAGAR, BENGALURU-560020, REPRESENTED BY ITS CMD MR. K. KESAVA. (BY SMT. SHRUTHI S.P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA THIS CRL.RP FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT (CCH-65) BENGALURU DATED 09.11.2021, IN MATTER BEARING CRL.A.NO.2370/2019, WHEREBY THE HON’BLE APPELLATE COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE SENTENCE PASSED BY THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN HON’BLE MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.27306/2018 DATED 17.10.2019. ADDITIONAL XXVIII - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4728 CRL.RP No. 1343 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 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This matter is listed for admission and the records are also received. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts committed an error in convicting and confirming the conviction and sentence. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the Courts have not noted that in Ex.P.1, the signature of the accused on the voucher is not at all present and also the account number mentioned in Ex.P.1 in RTGS payment instruction is not tallying with the account number of the accused as found in the disputed cheque in question i.e., Ex.P.6. The said fact has been overlooked by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. Both the Courts have not appreciated the fact that as per Ex.P.4, cash voucher, an amount of Rs.10 lakhs is alleged to have been paid to the accused through one Sri Venkatesh E and Sri Venkatesh E has also been stated in the list - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4728 CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2021 of witnesses submitted by the complainant. Although in the cross-examination of P.W.1, the complainant stated that he has no difficulty in summoning the said Venkatesh, the said person was not at all produced before the Trial Court. It is contended that the accused was due for an amount of Rs.13 lakhs to M/s. Max Siddhanth Properties and not the complainant’s company and the same is not appreciated by both the Courts. It is contended that Ex.P.15, which is the IT returns verification form of one M/s. Max Siddhanth Properties is not at all concerned with the complainant Company. The said M/s. Max Siddhanth Properties consists of two partners Sri Keshava K, who is P.W.1 and Vinaya Karthik, but P.W.1 says that it consists of three Directors. Merely because P.W.1 is a partner in M/s. Max Siddhanth Properties, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court ought not to have considered the said document. Both the Courts committed an error and hence this Court has to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there is no dispute with regard to having received an amount of Rs.3 lakhs through RTGS. The learned counsel contend that other two cheques are issued for Rs.6,50,000/- each. The learned counsel contend that the other - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4728 CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2021 cheque when it was dishonoured, criminal case was filed and was convicted and later in respect of other cheque is concerned, compromised the matter, but in respect of Rs.6,50,000/-, filed this revision petition. The learned counsel contend that when the document of Ex.P.3 was placed before the Court for having drawn the money and paid in favour of the petitioner, now cannot dispute the same. Apart from that, though the petitioner took the defence that the voucher does not pertains to him, the same was not sent to the expert. P.W.1 is also a partner of M/s. Max Siddhanth Properties and the case of the complainant is also that this petitioner having received the money to get the property in favour of M/s. Max Siddhanth Properties did not procure the land and hence the Trial Court and the Appellate Court not committed any error. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, it is the defence of the petitioner herein that no such cash voucher was issued. But the fact is that the amount was paid by cash after drawing the money and in order to prove the same, the document of Ex.P.3 is placed before the Court. Ex.P.1 discloses for having received Rs.3 lakhs and Ex.P.2 also evidence the fact that amount was
Decision
ORDER The criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37