The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1239 CRL.RP No. 1314 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1314 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PALANI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S. SANDYA ENGINEERING WORKS, NO.35/1, 3RD MAIN ROAD, LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU-560 021. (BY SRI. MOHAN S., ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
1. SRI. H. VASANTHKUMAR, S/O. SRI. P.B.HARISH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.86, NEAR SRINIVASA TOURING TALKIES, PIPELINE ROAD, K.B.HALLI, BENGALURU-560 086. (BY SRI. VIJI KUMAR A., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.03.2017 PASSED BY THE XL ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN IN C.C.NO.21638/2013 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 11.10.2019 PASSED BY THE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.458/2017 AND MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1239 CRL.RP No. 1314 of 2019 DIRECT THE PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED OF THE OFFENCE ALLEGED AND CHARGED AGAINST HIM. 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. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent is absent. In the previous date of hearing, this Court made it clear that if the learned counsel for the respondent does not appear on the next date of hearing, the matter will be heard in his absence. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- as hand loan from the complainant in the month of February 2012 for the purpose of business and other family necessities and promised to repay the said amount. The accused had issued a cheque on 14.03.2013 and when the cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. The notice was issued to the accused through the Court by RPAD as well as under certificate of posting and inspite of notice was served on him, no reply was given. Thereafter, complaint was filed and cognizance was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1239 CRL.RP No. 1314 of 2019 taken and accused was secured. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 6. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the discharge summary as Ex.D.1. The Trial Court having considered the cheque, notice and also the postal track receipt Ex.P.5 comes to the conclusion that notice was served on the accused and no reply was given and also though the defence was taken that the cheque was given to Rajendra, who is the relative of the accused, he was not examined and not rebutted the evidence of the complainant and convicted and sentenced him to pay an amount of Rs.3,90,000/-. Out of that, an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- is payable to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- vest with the State. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.458/2017 and the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record found that the Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating the material on record and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1239 CRL.RP No. 1314 of 2019 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. This Court secured the records of both the Courts. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the Courts lost sight in appreciating the evidence available on record and not applied its mind in properly appreciating the material on record. The learned counsel contend that specific defence was taken that cheque was given to Rajendra when he was not keeping well and the same was misused by Rajendra and the complainant and this fact has not been considered by the Trial Court. The learned counsel contend that the cheque amount is Rs.1,95,000/- and the Trial Court awarded fine amount double the amount of the cheque. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material available on record, in the cross-examination of D.W.1, he categorically admitted the signature available on the cheque and the cheque belongs to him, but only contention was taken that he had given the said cheque to Rajendra in order to get the materials since he was suffering from illness and in order to substantiate the same, he has not examined the said Rajendra and only reason given is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1239 CRL.RP No. 1314 of 2019 that he is not available for examination. When the defence was taken that he gave the cheque to Rajendra and there was no any transaction between the complainant and himself, he ought to have placed the cogent material before the Court. When there is a clear admission on the part of the petitioner that the cheque belongs to him and specific defence was taken, ought to have placed the evidence of preponderance of probabilities and that has not been done and mere taking of defence is not enough and ought to have examined Rajendra who is the relative. The same has been taken note of by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court while re-appreciating the material available on record taken note of the said fact into consideration. It is important to note that when the cheque and the signature is admitted, the burden shifts on the petitioner to disprove the case of the complainant and except examining himself and giving his self style evidence that he gave the cheque to Rajendra, not examined him and not rebutted the evidence of the complainant and hence I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court while considering the material on record. The defence remains as defence and not placed any preponderance of probabilities to come to other conclusion. When such being the case and when there is no - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1239 CRL.RP No. 1314 of 2019 perversity in the finding of both the Courts, the question of interfering with the findings of both the Courts by exercising the revisional jurisdiction does not arise. Hence, I do not find any material to admit the same. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the fine imposed is double the cheque amount. Having taken note of the transaction is of the year 2013 and almost 11 years has been elapsed and the Trial Court also having taken note of the said fact into consideration directed the accused to pay the said amount. Even if the amount was invested in any nationalized bank, the amount would be double the amount. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court. No grounds are made out to modify the fine amount also. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Decision
ORDER Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41