The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8096 CRL.RP No. 1333 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1333 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. A S PRASHANTHA, S/O CHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT KSRTC UNIT NO.1, BADGE NO. 5943, HASSAN 573 201. (BY SRI. THUSHANATH C V.,ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. YOGESHA, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA S/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT CHINNU CHINDU NILAYA, NO.185, 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA EXTENSION, HASSAN 573 201.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. KUMARA K G.,ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/11/2022 PASSED IN CC NO.1750/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN AND CONFIRMED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT HASSAN IN CRL. APPEAL NO.51/2023 JUDGMENT DATED 2/8/2024 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8096 CRL.RP No. 1333 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSON, 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. This Court had issued notice against the respondent and the respondent is represented through the counsel and the learned counsel for the respondent is absent. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent/complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused approached the complainant for loan since both of them are known to each other. On 18.12.2018, the complainant advanced an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and the accused undertook to repay the said amount within three months. On the same day, the accused has issued the subject matter of the cheque dated 11.03.2019 and when the said cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. Immediately the complainant had caused issuance of legal notice and the same was not claimed by the accused. Hence, he filed a complaint and cognizance was taken and the accused appeared and did not plead guilty. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8096 CRL.RP No. 1333 of 2024 documents at Exs.P.1 to 5(a). The accused did not choose to lead any evidence. The Trial Court having taken note of the complaint and also the evidence of P.W.1, comes to the conclusion that Ex.P.1 cheque is admitted. The accused made the payment of Rs.50,000/-. The Trial Court having taken note of the payment of Rs.50,000/- by the accused to the complainant, reduced the fine amount to Rs.2,05,000/- after deducting Rs.50,000/- and there is a reference to that effect in the order itself. The accused did not lead any rebuttal evidence and hence the Trial Court convicted and sentenced him to pay the amount. 3. The said order was challenged before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.51/2023. The Appellate Court on re-assessing the material on record, in paragraph No.9 taken note of the documents and no rebuttal evidence and in paragraph No.10 taken note of the payment of Rs.50,000/- and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence and confirmation, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8096 CRL.RP No. 1333 of 2024 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that there is no proper service of notice. Having perused the postal cover, which is marked as Ex.P.5 and 5(a), the address is mentioned that he is a driver working in KSRTC and even badge number was given and intimation was given on 5 days and the petitioner did not claim the same. Hence, service of notice was held sufficient. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no proper service of notice cannot be accepted. 6. The other ground urged before this Court that the place of advance is not mentioned, and the fact that he appeared before the Trial Court and made the payment of Rs.50,000/- as part payment, is not in dispute. And now, he cannot contend that the place is not mentioned regarding payment is concerned. Once he has admitted the payment and made part payment before the Trial Court, it is not contended before the revisional court. It is also important to note that the counsel brought to the notice of this Court the correction made in the legal notice for repayment, and it was typed as guarantor, and the same was striked out and mentioned as for repayment. The said contention also cannot be accepted when the legal notice was marked, and the same is correct for repayment. The - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8096 CRL.RP No. 1333 of 2024 case of the complainant throughout is having received the money and issued the subject matter of the cheque, and when the same was presented and the same was dishonoured. 7. When such being the material and also made the part payment, now cannot contend that the same is corrected in the legal notice for repayment. The accused has not cross- examined the PW.1 nor led any defense evidence before the trial Court. When such being the case, the petitioner cannot find fault with the reasoning of the trial court since having made the part payment before the trial court to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. 8. The counsel appearing for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this court that, in the Appellate Court, it was settled for Rs.1,20,000/- and also brought to the notice of this Court that in the Appellate Court records it is mentioned as settled for 1,20,000/-. But on perusal of the memo, no such order was passed by the Appellate Court and also, on perusal of the memo, it is noticed that it is only signed by the complainant advocate and the respondent advocate, but the parties have not signed the same. When such being the case, this Court also cannot bind the parties unless the parties have signed the same. Hence, on these grounds, this Court cannot interfere with the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8096 CRL.RP No. 1333 of 2024 finding of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, as there is no rebuttal evidence under Section 139 of N.I Act. It is a settled law that presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act is a rebuttal presumption. The complainant produced the cheque and got marked the documents, and also, when the cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement. Hence, without any probable defence as well as the preponderance of probabilities, the question of accepting the grounds urged by the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any grounds to admit and consider the matter on merits. 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,SKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48