The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16595 CRL.RP No. 1504 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1504 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. K. SHRIDHAR S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.20, ADITYA NAGAR, KOTHNURU, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560078 (BY SRI. AKRAM PASHA K, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. Y.S.SANTOSH, S/O Y.R. SEETHARAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.47, 4TH CROSS, 23RD MAIN, MANJUNATHA COLONY, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078. …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KRISHNA S VYAS, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-63) AT BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.744/2021 DTD ON 14.08.2024 AND IN CC.NO.24750/2017 BY ORDER DTD Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16595 CRL.RP No. 1504 of 2024 28.09.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XVI ACMM AT BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER This petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C
Legal Reasoning
is by the accused, wherein he has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which came to be confirmed by the Sessions Court by dismissing the appeal filed by him. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. Complainant filed the complaint against the accused contending that he is a businessman having a travel agency functioning at the ground floor of the address given in the cause title. Accused was running a chit fund in the name of M/s SLV Chits having its registered office at J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru. Complainant - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16595 CRL.RP No. 1504 of 2024 invested in several of the schemes floated by the accused and during the course of the transaction, he has developed good faith in the accused and also reposed confidence and trust in his schemes. In fact, he introduced several customers to invest in the schemes floated by the accused. 3.1 During 2009, complainant made a bid for a chit scheme for which accused was liable to pay a sum of ₹7,48,000/- to the complainant. However, accused went on postponing the payment for various reasons including COVID. Ultimately on the repeated request and demand by the complainant in the month of March 2017, accused issued cheque dated 10.05.2017. When accused failed to pay the amount due, he presented the cheque on due date and it was returned dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused. It was returned with an endorsement "Addressee not found hence returned". Intentionally the accused has failed to make arrangement for payment of the amount - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16595 CRL.RP No. 1504 of 2024 due. He has also failed to receive the notice and comply with it and hence complaint. 4. Accused appeared before the trial Court and resisted the complaint by pleading not guilty. 5. In order to prove the allegations, complainant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.C1 to 8. 6. During the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused has denied incriminating evidence led by the complainant. 7. The trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay fine of ₹7,65,000/- with the default sentence of imprisonment. 8. Accused challenged the same before the Sessions Court. It came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court contending that the complainant has not led any reliable and trustworthy evidence to prove his case. The exact date month on which the alleged loan was advanced - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16595 CRL.RP No. 1504 of 2024 is not proved. Notice is not served on the accused. Complainant has also failed to prove that accused was running a chit business and he has participated in the same. The complainant has also failed to prove his financial capacity to invest in the chit business. Except the sign of accused the rest of the contents of cheque are in different ink supporting the defence of the accused that it was not issued to the complainant, but he has presented the same by receiving it from one Ravi Kumar. The trial Court as well as the Sessions Court have failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and thereby fell into error and hence the petition. 10. On the other hand, supporting the judgment and order of the trial Court and Sessions Court, learned counsel for complainant would submit that having regard to the fact that the cheque in question is drawn on the account of accused and it bears his signature and on presentation dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and after completing all the requisite formalities complaint is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16595 CRL.RP No. 1504 of 2024 filed, presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act is attracted placing the initial burden on the accused to rebut the same. However, accused has failed to discharge the said burden. On the other hand the complainant has proved his case and therefore rightly both Courts have held accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. There is no perversity calling for interference by this Court and pray to dismiss the petition also. 11. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record. 12. Since the cheque in question is drawn on the account of the accused and it bears his signature and on presentation, it is dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act is attracted. It is for the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued towards repayment of any legally recoverable debt or liability. It is pertinent to note that the legal notice sent to the accused is returned with an endorsement "Addressee left". Accused admit that it was his address, but he had left the said address since long back. However, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16595 CRL.RP No. 1504 of 2024 the accused has not produced any evidence to show to which address he has shifted. Admittedly, he has not left his new address to the postal authorities i.e he has left the address without intimation. 13. During the course of evidence, the complainant has clearly stated that when he issued the notice and also filed the complaint, accused was working in the same address. According to the complainant, accused was running the chit business in the said address. Since it was an unregulated business, there are no documents to establish the said fact. However, accused during the course of his cross-examination has admitted that complaint was given against him by Ravi Kumar and others and in this regard, charge sheet in C.C.No.115843/2018 was filed against him for the offences punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Price Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act (for short 'BUDS Act'). He has admitted that in C.C.No.115843/2018 also, same address - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16595 CRL.RP No. 1504 of 2024 is given as in the present complaint. When suggested that Ravi Kumar has filed complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act, the accused has stated that he has compromised with him. 14. The accused has taken a specific defence that the cheque in question was issued by him to the said Ravi Kumar and he has got the present complaint filed through complainant. If at all the accused has compromised with said Ravi Kumar, then he could have taken back the cheques given to him. Accused has not produced any documents to show that he has compromised with Ravi Kumar. At least he could have given stop payment instructions to the bank assigning the reason for such instructions. Accused has admitted the suggestion that in the case filed by Ravi Kumar, he has not made any suggestions to him that one of the cheques given to him is handed over to the present complainant. He has also admitted that the shop of the complainant was situated in front of his shop and he was available in the address given - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16595 CRL.RP No. 1504 of 2024 in the complaint prior to 2010. However, the accused has not produced any evidence to prove his address when the legal notice was sent. 15. Through the material placed on record, the complainant has discharged the initial burden placed on him. However, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption and therefore the burden has not shifted back to the complainant. Since it is stated to be a chit transaction, wherein payment would be made in instalments, requirement of proving the financial capacity of complainant would not arise. Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court have rightly held that the allegations against accused are proved, convicted and sentenced him. This Court finds no perversity in the conclusions arrived at by them, calling for interference in exercise of revisionary jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition fails and accordingly the following: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16595 CRL.RP No. 1504 of 2024
Decision
ORDER 1. Petition filed by the accused under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C is dismissed. 2. The impugned judgment and order dated 28.09.2021 in C.C.No.24750/2017 on the file of XVI ACMM, Bengaluru and judgment and order dated 14.08.2024 in Crl.A.No.744/2021 on the file of LXII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, are hereby confirmed. 3. The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court as well as Sessions Court records along with a copy of this order forthwith. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53