The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14885 CRL.RP No. 1595 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1595 OF 2022 BETWEEN: M/S KEN CONSULTING PVT LTD REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, ANISH SINGHAL OFFICE AT NO.14/3, IIIRD FLOOR HRB CHAMBERS, ANDREE ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K.V ADVOCATE) AND: VISHWANATH G S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.27, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, KALYAN NAGAR, MOODALAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 072. …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND FINE IMPOSED BY THE LEARNED XXIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU (23rd ACMM) VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2018 PASSED IN C.C.NO.14396/2017 AND IN CRL.A.NO.1680/2018 DATED 03.10.2022 PASSED BY THE LXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-64 FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14885 CRL.RP No. 1595 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER Though the matter was listed for Admission, at the consent of revision petitioner's counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. In this revision petition, the revision petitioner/accused has assailed the judgment dated 03.10.2022 passed by the Court of LXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
Legal Reasoning
(CCH-64), Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.1680/2018, whereby the First Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru City (for short 'the trial Court') in C.C.No.14396/2017 dated 01.08.2018. 3. Parties are referred to as per ranking before the trial Court. 4. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14885 CRL.RP No. 1595 of 2022 The accused is running a business under the name and style as M/s. Ken Consulting Private Limited, M/s. Ken IT Solutions and M/s. Ken Complex. The complainant is an employee under the accused as a Data Base Administrator-II, Senior Programmer and Technical Architect-IT. The accused failed to pay the monthly salary to the complainant and after amicable settlement, the revision petitioner/accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- towards the payment. To discharge the said amount, the accused had issued 25 cheques to the complainant. Out of the those cheques, 3 cheques i.e., Exs.P1 to P3 (cheques bearing No.000638 dated 31.10.2014, 000638 dated 30.11.2014 and 000639 dated 31.12.2014) for a sum of Rs.22,916/- each drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Race Course Road Branch, Bengaluru. The complainant presented the said cheques for encashment, however, the same were returned with an endorsement "Refer to Drawer". The said aspect was intimated to the accused by the complainant by issuing a legal notice dated 20.02.2015. The said legal notice was duly served on the accused. Despite, the accused failed to reply to the notice or to repay the hand loan. Hence, the complainant filed the private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14885 CRL.RP No. 1595 of 2022 Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the NI Act') before the trial court. 5. In order to prove the case before the trial court, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to P13. However, the accused neither examined any witness nor marked any documents on his behalf. 6. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced as under: "ORDER Accused found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence to pay fine of Rs.73,748/- within appeal period. Out of the said fine amount, sum of the Rs.68,748/- shall be payable complainant as compensation as per Section 357 of Cr.P.C. Remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be payable to the state as fine amount. to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14885 CRL.RP No. 1595 of 2022 Failing which, as default sentence, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for 02 (Two) months." 7. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the accused approached the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1680/2018. The First Appellate Court, after re-assessment of entire evidence on record dismissed the appeal filed by the accused by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 8.
Legal Reasoning
I have heard Sri Manjunath K.V., the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused is that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred while convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act without appreciating the evidence in right perspective. He further contended that the trial Court has not extended the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant so also to lead the defence evidence of the accused to prove his defence. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14885 CRL.RP No. 1595 of 2022 10. I have carefully perused the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 11. As could be gathered from the records, the issuance of the cheques in question and the signature of the accused on the cheques i.e., Exs.P1 to P3 is not in dispute. Further, the legal notice was issued by the complainant to the accused; the accused has neither replied the legal notice nor examined any witness to rebut the initial presumption by placing probable defence to disprove the case of the complainant. On perusal of the evidence on record, the accused failed to cross-examine the complainant in spite of granting sufficient opportunities by the trial Court. Such being the position, the evidence of the complainant-PW.1 is remained unchallenged. In that view of the matter, I find no good grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court which was upheld by the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. The Criminal Revision petition is dismissed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14885 CRL.RP No. 1595 of 2022 ii. The judgment of conviction dated 01.08.2018 passed by the Court of XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru City in C.C.No.14396/2017, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court i.e., LXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-64), Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.1680/2018 dated 03.10.2022 is hereby confirmed. iii. The revision petitioner/accused shall deposit the fine of Rs.73,748/- as imposed by the trial Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. iv. Out of the said fine amount, Rs.68,748/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and remaining Rs.5,000/- shall be submitted to the State Treasury. v. The Registry is directed to send the trial Court records along with the copy - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14885 CRL.RP No. 1595 of 2022 of this order to the concerned Court, forthwith. Pending Interlocutory Application[s], if any, stands disposed of. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14