Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1984
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. NATARAJAN, J.
N.Puttaswamy S/o Late Nanjaiah – Appellant
Versus
Mohanraj Purohith S/o Punmaji Purohith – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No.304, 305 of 2011
Decided On : 12-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri Karthik Yadav U. For Sri S.K.Venkata Reddy, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri G.Balakrishna Shastry, Adv.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instrument Act - Section 138 – Loan – Dishonoured of Cheque – Appeal against conviction - Complainant is that accused is known to him - Accused has obtained loan from the complainant and agreed to repay within six months - When complainant demanded accused to discharge loan, accused issued a cheque - Complainant presented said cheque to his Bank which came to be dishonoured for reason ‘FUNDS INSUFFICIENT’ - Notice also issued to accused by complainant but accused failed to repay said amount. Hence, complainant filed a complaint against accused - Held, Though documents are not required, but it is also relevant to present case for taking defence by accused. The cheque numbers in those two cases was shown - If these two cheque were compared with cheque in question, it clearly goes to show that these two cheques were issued by the accused-Puttaswamy and another two cheques were issued by the accused and those numbers are adjacent numbers to each other - Other two cases were filed by Ramakrishna which criminal offences taken by accused shows that there is an argument addressed by counsel for the accused. Therefore trial Court and First Appellate Court has committed error in convicting accused holding that complainant has established his case for having paid loan to accused. Accused gave cheque to complainant in order to discharge their liability which is legally enforceable. Findings of trial Court and First Appellate Court are required to be set aside - Criminal revision petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. Criminal Revision Petition No.305/2011 is filed by the petitioner-accused Sri Puttaswamy assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’) in C.C.No.761/2007 dated 19.12.2009 and the same is upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl.A.No.3/2010 whereas, Criminal Revision Petition No.304/2011 is filed by the petitioner-accused Sri Kiran Kumar assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mandya in C.C.No.756/2007 dated 19.12.2009 and the same was up held by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl.A.No.9/2010 dated 10.12.2010 and the common judgment is passed by the First Appellate Court in both Crl.A.Nos.3 and 9/2010.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and the respondent-complainant.
3. The rank of the parties before the trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.
4. Since, the complainant in both the cases are one and the same and after the consent of both the parties, both the cases are taken up for common disposal.
5. The case of the complainant in Crl.R.P.No.305/2011 is that the accused is known to him. The accused has obtained loan for Rs.3,40,000/from the complainant on 22.05.2005 and agreed to repay within six months. When the complainant demanded the accused to discharge the loan, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.923165 dated 02.02.2006 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Ontikoppalu Branch, Mysore. The complainant presented the said cheque to his Bank i.e., Bank of India, Mandya Branch which came to be dishonoured on 13.02.2006 for the reason ‘FUNDS INSUFFICIENT’. The notice also issued to the accused by the complainant on 24.02.2006, but the accused failed to repay the said amount. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint against the accused-N.Puttaswamy for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. After taking cognizance, the presence of the accused has been secured. The accused pleaded not guilty and on behalf of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as PW.1 and got marked 18 documents and on behalf of the accused, he himself examined as DW.1 and also got marked 6 documents. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,45,000/in default ordered to undergo imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine amount Rs.3,40,000/shall be paid as compensation to the complainant. Assailing the same, the accused has filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.3/2010 which came to be dismissed on 10.12.2010. Hence, he has preferred this revision petition before this Court.
6. Whereas, in Crl.R.P.No.304/2011, the same complainant has contended that the accused approached him for loan and the complainant has lent Rs.2,90,000/- to the accused on 29.05.2005 and to discharge the said loan, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.111581 dated 29.01.2006 of Corporation Bank, V.V.Mohalla, Mysore Branch, Mysore and the same was presented before his Bank i.e, Bank of India, Mandya Branch on 14.02.2006, the same was dishonoured for the reason “FUNDS INSIFFICIENT”. Notice also issued to the accused on 24.02.2006, but the accused failed to repay the said amount. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint against the accused-Kiran Kumar for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. After taking cognizance, the presence of the accused has been secured by the trial Court and plea was recorded, the accused pleaded not guilty. To prove its case, the complainant himself examined as PW.1 and got marked 18 documents and on behalf of the accused, he himself examined as DW.1 but no documents were marked. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has convicted the accused and sentenced to pay Rs.2,95,000/in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Out of the fine amount, Rs.2,90,000/to be pa
