The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17659 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1373 OF 2023 BETWEEN: VEERABHADRA S/O KANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O MANEGHATTA IN CHIKKANELLURU VILLAGE, MASUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, SAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401 (BY SRI. NAGARAJ M BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SOMASHEKARAPPA K.M S/O MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O BHEEMANAKONE ROAD, SAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401 (BY SRI. S.V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19.06.2023 PASSED BY THE V ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS IN JUDGE, CRL.A.NO.10009/2020 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SHIVAMOGGA SITTING SAGAR AT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17659 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2023 CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 08.01.2020 PASSED BY THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C SAGAR IN C.C.NO.449/2019 (CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT) AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER In this revision petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.10009/2020 dated 19.06.2023 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga
Legal Reasoning
sitting at Sagara (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court), whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner by confirming the judgment of conviction and the
Decision
order of sentence passed in C.C.No.449/2019 dated 08.01.2020 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Sagara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'). 2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17659 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2023 3. The abridged facts of the case are that that: The accused is well acquainted with the complainant. On 12.08.2013, the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- from the complainant as hand loan for his financial difficulties assuring to repay the same within two months. For repayment of the said loan amount, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.485778 dated 18.01.2014 drawn on State Bank of India, Sagara Branch. The said cheque was presented by the complainant through his banker for encashment, however, the same was returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The said aspect was informed by the complainant to the accused, despite he failed to repay the same. As such, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused on 04.02.2014, calling upon him to repay the cheque amount. Though the said notice served to the accused, neither he replied to the legal notice nor repaid the loan amount. As such, the complainant filed the private complaint before the trial Court under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act'). - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17659 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2023 4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he examined himself as PW.1 and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. However, the accused neither examined any witnesses nor got marked any documents. 5. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence placed before the trial Court, the trial Court passed the judgment by convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, further directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and he was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. within three months. 6. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the accused preferred the criminal appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1009/2020. On reassessment of the oral and documentary evidence and documents on record, learned Session Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17659 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2023 judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel, Sri Nagaraj M. Bhat, for Sri R.B.Deshpande, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. However in spite of granting sufficient opportunity the learned counsel for the respondent remained absent. 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred while passing the impugned judgment by convicting the accused without appreciating the evidence on record in the right perspective. He further contended that the accused has approached the complainant for loan from the Krushik Souharda Bank, at that time, the complainant had obtained a blank signed cheque from the accused. Thereafter, the complainant had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/-, when the accused refused for the same, he presented the cheque for unlawful gain. The said probable defence has not been considered by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17659 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2023 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner so also perused the documents, the only point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal in Crl.A.No.10009/2020 dated 19.06.2023 thereby confirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.449/2019 dated 08.01.2020? 10. It could be gathered from the records, Ex.P1-the cheque in question and the signature of the accused on it, are not seriously disputed by the accused. The specific defence raised by the accused is that he approached the complainant to get loan from the Krushik Souharda Bank, at that time, the complainant had obtained the signed cheque from the accused. However, the accused has neither examined any witness nor produced any documents to prove his defence. No doubt, the initial presumption arises under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, it is settled position of law that such defence of the accused must be a probable one with cogent evidence. In the case on hand the accused has failed to rebut the initial presumption by placing a probable - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17659 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2023 defence. In such circumstances, I find no good grounds to interfere in the judgment passed by the trial Court which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 11. Albeit, the sentence imposed by the trial Court which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court i.e., the sentence imposed for a period of six month and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and the compensation amount imposed by the trial Court i.e., a sum of Rs.70,000/- which was double the cheque amount, are appeared to be acute. In such circumstances, the order of sentence is liable to be modified 12. In that view of the matter, the revision petition partly succeeds. Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in partly affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Revision petition is allowed-in-part; - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17659 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2023 ii) The order of the sentence passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagara in C.C.No.449/2019 dated 08.01.2020, which was confirmed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting at Sagar in Crl.A.No.10009/2020 dated 19.06.2023, is hereby modified by setting aside the imprisonment imposed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I Act and also the compensation amount awarded under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. iii) The revision petitioner/accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent/complainant and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. iv) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that 50% of the compensation amount imposed by the trial Court already deposited i.e, Rs.35,000/- and he undertakes to deposit the balance amount of Rs.15,000/- within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17659 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2023 v) Registry is directed to send back the records to the concerned Court along with certified copy of this order forthwith. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19