The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2859 CRL.RP No. 1618 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1618 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B.J. SATISH, S/O LATE JANA SRIPADA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, KEREKOPPA VILLAGE, NISRANI POST, SORAPA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 534.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. YOGITHA MUDAKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY M.R., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. SRI. T.V. PANDURANGA, S/O T.VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, KHB COLONY, GANDHINAGAR, SAGAR-577 453, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR IN C.C.NO.255/2010 DATED 10.09.2012 AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT SAGAR IN CR.NO.183/2012 DATED 26.11.2016. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2859 CRL.RP No. 1618 of 2016 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. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.59,000/- from him and for repayment of the said amount he issued a cheque and when the said cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient.” Hence, the complainant issued the notice and no reply was given and hence complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and the accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and hence the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 7. The accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 3. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, convicted the petitioner in coming to the conclusion that though the accused took the defence that the cheque was given in favour of Prakash, the accused did not choose to examine the said Prakash to prove his defence. Apart from that, in the cross-examination, he - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2859 CRL.RP No. 1618 of 2016 categorically admitted that the signature available on the cheque Ex.P.1 is his signature and the amount mentioned in the cheque is also admitted by him i.e., Rs.59,000/- and the same contains his handwriting and admitted that the notice was issued and served on him, but he did not give any reply and hence held that defence has not been proved and convicted and sentenced him to pay the amount. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed and the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material available on record, in paragraph No.22 taken note of that all the contents of Ex.P.1 cheque are in the handwriting of the accused himself is admitted by him. That apart, the said cheque is issued in the name of the complainant and the said name is written by the accused himself and hence the theory that the cheque was given in favour of Prakash was not accepted and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2859 CRL.RP No. 1618 of 2016 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts committed an error and failed the appreciate the document of Ex.D.1, wherein there is a specific recital to the effect that the cheque in question was given to Prakash on the given period of time. The said material is not considered by both the Courts and hence it requires interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have taken note of the admission on the part of the accused regarding the issuance of cheque and also the contents of the cheque in the handwriting of the accused and hence the question of accepting the defence of the petitioner does not arise. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also this Court has secured the records of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and having taken note of the defence of the petitioner, it is the defence of the petitioner that the cheque was given to one Prakash and not in favour of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2859 CRL.RP No. 1618 of 2016 complainant. But when D.W.1 was subjected to cross- examination he categorically admits that he only had written the name of the complainant in the cheque and so also the amount mentioned in the cheque and also admits the signature on Ex.P.1 cheque. When such admissions are given by the petitioner and also when the petitioner did not examine the said Prakash, the Trial Court did not accept the theory of issuing the cheque in favour of Prakash. Both the Courts taken note of the defence of the petitioner and discussed in detail and in paragraph No.13, the Trial Court taken note of all these facts into consideration. The Appellate Court in paragraph No.22 discussed the material on record and hence I do not find any perversity in the finding of the Trial Court in view of the admission given by D.W.1 himself in the cross-examination admitting the cheque and the contents of the Cheque i.e., amount and the name written by the petitioner himself. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the cheque was issued in favour of Prakash and not in favour of the complainant cannot be accepted. In the absence of any perversity in the finding of the Trial Court, I - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2859 CRL.RP No. 1618 of 2016 do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and no grounds are made out to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71