1. SRI v. RAVI S/O VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT 461/1, 1ST MAIN 2ND CROSS, A.S.PALYA
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7593 CRL.RP No. 1445 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1445 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PURUSHOTHAM M., S/O MUNI MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT CHINNAMUTHALLI VILLAGE HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI-635 109. (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA HALINATHOTA, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. SRI V. RAVI S/O VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT 461/1, 1ST MAIN 2ND CROSS, A.S.PALYA NEAR KITTANNA HOTEL, HAL POST, BENGALURU–560 017. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LEELARAJU M.N, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED CONCURRENT CONVICTION JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE APPELLANT COURT IN CRL.A.NO.25023/2021, DATED 01.12.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU AND IMPUGNED CONVICTION JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE XV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES COURT AND 23RD A.C.M.M., MAYO HALL, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.51896/2017 DATED 11.01.2021 AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7593 CRL.RP No. 1445 of 2021 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Legal Reasoning
every week. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment, no doubt in the case on hand, complainant has declared the same in his income tax returns, to prove the fact that he was an income tax assessee, nothing is placed on record. Apart from that, in the decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Cheque given in favour of other person gone to the hands of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7593 CRL.RP No. 1445 of 2021 the complainant. Hence, the Apex Court comes to the conclusion that no reason was assigned as to how he got the Cheque. Having considered the principles in the judgment, the reasoning given is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the said case, signature was found in the agreement and rebuttal evidence was led by the accused and Apex Court comes to the conclusion that rebuttal evidence is placed before the Court. In the case on hand, there is no rebuttal evidence and with regard to the chit transaction is concerned, from which account he has given the Cheque is also not substantiated by placing any plausible evidence before the Trial Court. The Court can accept the defence only if any answer is elicited from the witness and answer elicited from D.Ws.1 and 3 is that nothing is placed on record to prove that there was chit transaction between the complainant and the accused. Further, the petitioner has not examined any other subscriber of the chit to prove that there was chit transaction between him and the complainant and once he admits that Cheque bears his signature, he has to rebut the same by leading cogent evidence and unless the presumption is rebutted, the question of coming to other conclusion does not arise. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7593 CRL.RP No. 1445 of 2021 13. Having reassessed the material on record, the First Appellate Court even extracted the admission of D.W.1 and P.W.1, while considering the material on records and the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court not committed any error in appreciating the evidence. The scope of revision is very limited and only if the finding suffers from perversity and legal infirmity, then only Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction and the said circumstance is not warranted in the case on hand to invoke the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, I do not find any merit in the revision petition to come to an other conclusion. Therefore, I answer point No.(i) as ‘negative’. Point No.(ii) 14. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This matter is listed for admission and since, records are received, the matter is considered on merits. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent and on the previous occasion also, the counsel was absent and this Court made it clear that, if learned counsel for the respondent does not appear on the next date of hearing, the matter will be heard in his absence. 2. This revision petition is fled against the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court under Section 138 of N.I. Act, wherein three months simple imprisonment as well as fine of Rs.2,000/- is imposed and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant and liberty is reserved to the complainant to recover the said amount as per Section 421 Cr.P.C, if the same is not paid. The said order of the Trial Court is confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.25023/2021. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7593 CRL.RP No. 1445 of 2021 3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that accused is his friend. Due to financial difficulties, the accused has approached the complainant and borrowed a hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/- in the month of first week of August, 2015 and promised to repay the same within a month. Thereafter, the complainant has approached the accused and demanded to repay the hand loan. Towards repayment, the accused has issued a Cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- dated 17.01.2017 and when the same was presented, it was dishonoured with an endorsement, ‘funds insufficient’. The same was communicated to him, legal notice was issued and the same was served and he did not comply with the demand. Hence, private complaint was given. The Trial Court taken cognizance, secured the accused and he did not plead guilty and claimed for trail. 4. In order to prove the case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P5 i.e., Cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, postal receipt and postal endorsement. On the other hand, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 and one witness as D.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D3. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7593 CRL.RP No. 1445 of 2021 5. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of complainant and documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that defence was taken in the cross-examination that complainant was running a chit transaction and in that connection, he has issued the Cheque as security. But, during the course of cross-examination, nothing is elicited and when D.W.1 also examined, he did not place any material regarding chit transaction and the witness D.W.2 is also not a member of said chit transaction. Hence, not accepted the defence theory of the accused and convicted and sentenced the petitioner. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, even extracted the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 and having reassessed the material on record, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that even though witnesses depose that there was chit transaction, nothing is placed on record and no other subscriber of the chit transaction has been examined before the Court. Hence, not accepted the defence theory and confirmed the order of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7593 CRL.RP No. 1445 of 2021 Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present revision is filed before this Court. 7. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is an admission with regard to payment of Rs.10,000/- is concerned by the complainant and inspite of he being elaborately cross-examined and answers are elicited regarding earlier transaction and subscription of chit also, when questions were put, he has not admitted the same and it is a clear case of misusing of Cheque which had been given in connection with the chit transaction and the same is not accepted by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, relied upon the judgment in SRI DATTATRAYA VS. SHARANAPPA reported in AIR 2024 SC 4103, wherein with regard to dishonour of Cheque and presumption regarding negotiable instruments, observed that financial capacity or acknowledgement by complainant to the effect of having advanced a loan to accused was not indicated in income tax returns, complainant failed to prove when the said loan was advanced and to explain as to how a Cheque issued by accused - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7593 CRL.RP No. 1445 of 2021 allegedly in favour of another person came to his hands, complainant was not able to plead even a valid existence of legally recoverable debt, accused had inscribed his signature on agreement drawn on a white paper and not on a stamp paper and accused had rebutted presumption under Section 139, the Apex Court held that acquittal is valid. Learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that in the case on hand, the complainant has not declared the same in his income tax returns. Hence, it requires interference. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also principles laid down in the judgment and the reasons assigned by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether both the Courts committed an error in coming to the conclusion that complainant has issued Ex.P1-Cheque and the same is towards legal liability and committed an error in not accepting the defence theory and whether it requires interference of this Court by exercising revisional jurisdiction and whether the order of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness? - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7593 CRL.RP No. 1445 of 2021 (ii) What order? Point No.(i) 10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material on record, it is the specific case of the complainant that this petitioner was having acquaintance with the complainant, since both of them are friends and the accused had approached the complainant for availing loan of Rs.4,00,000/- in the first week of August, 2015 and he promised to repay, but he did not repay the amount and issued the subject matter of Cheque dated 17.01.2017 towards repayment. It is not in dispute that Cheque was issued and signature in Ex.P1 is admitted and when the same was presented, it was dishonoured is also not in dispute. 11. It is also important to note that when the Cheque was dishonoured, notice was given and the same was served and the accused did not give any reply. However, it is the specific defence of the petitioner that complainant was running chit transaction and in order to prove the factum of complainant was running chit transaction, nothing is produced before the Trial Court and even did not examine other - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7593 CRL.RP No. 1445 of 2021 subscriber of the chit and only he had examined the witness D.W.2 and though, he says that in connection with chit transaction, Cheque was given, he was not a subscriber of the chit. The petitioner also categorically admits that, if any chit transaction is made, normally, insist other subscriber to become a guarantor and D.W.1 also categorically admits that he did not offer any guarantee of any other subscriber of the chit and with regard to chit transaction is concerned, defence remains as defence only. 12. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to notice of this Court that the petitioner was a Carpenter, suggestion was made that he was not saving money, but he categorically says that he was saving Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- every week, though he claims that he used to save Rs.6,000/-
Decision
ORDER The criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37