SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Kar) 248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J.
R. Hanumantharaya Son of Ramadasappa (late) - Petitioner
Vs.
A.P. Krishnakumar S/o. A.R. Parameshwaran - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.56 OF 2019
Decided On : 15-06-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant :P. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate)
For The Respondent:Sangamesh G. Patil, Advocate)

Point of law : Negotiable instruments - Though in the notice, the demand for compensation, interest, cost, etc. is also made, the drawer will be absolved from his liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, if he meets the demand of the amount covered by the cheque for which he was aware, within fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the notice or before the complaint is filed.

Headnote:

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Petitioner as accused was tried by Court of XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, in Criminal Case for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was convicted for said offence by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence – Accused preferred a Criminal Appeal in Court of LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65) in Criminal Appeal – Whether judgments under revision are perverse, illegal and erroneous, warranting interference at hands of this Court.

Finding of the Court:

Court is of view that, notice issued by complainant as per Exhibit P-3, in instant case, cannot be called as bad in eye of law, more particularly, under Section 138 (b) of N.I. Act – As such, only argument of learned counsel for revision petitioner on said point is not acceptable. – Since evidence of PW-1 supported by documentary evidence at Exhibits P-1 to P-8 and undisputed fact, as observed above, would clearly go to show that, accused, as a drawer, has issued a cheque at Exhibit P-1 in favour of complainant and that said cheque came to be dishonoured for reason "Exceeds arrangement" when presented for its realisation and also in view of fact that complainant has demanded payment of outstanding liability after giving deduction of subsequent part payment made by accused and admittedly, since accused has not paid said demanded amount and also in view of fact that, defence of accused that complainant was getting cheques drawn upon his account through accused and was misusing Society's funds for his purposes could not succeed in rebutting presumption formed in favour of complainant, judgment of conviction passed by Trial Court which was further confirmed by Sessions Judge's Court cannot be held as illegal or perverse. – Court do not find any reason in interfering in impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, which was confirmed by Sessions Judge's Court.

Result : Criminal Revision Petition Dismissed

ORDER :

The present petitioner as the accused was tried by the Court of the learned XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial Court”), in Criminal Case No.3800/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the N.I. Act”) and was convicted for the said offence by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 10-04-2017.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred a Criminal Appeal in the Court of the learned LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65) at Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Sessions Judge’s Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.659/2017.

The appeal was contested by the respondent who was the complainant in the Trial Court. The Sessions Judge’s Court in its order dated 02-01-2019 dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court dated 10-04-2017 in C.C.No.3800/2016.

Aggrieved by the said order, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court was that, the complainant knew the accused and they were close friends since several years. The accused faced acute shortage of funds for domestic needs and for his business purposes. As such, he availed a loan of a sum of Rs. 7,75,000/-from the complainant in the month of March-2014 and agreed to repay the same within a period of one year. The said loan was given to the accused by the complainant on various dates through cheques as shown below:-

Sl.No.

Date

Cheque No.

Amount

1

3/4/2014

414830

3,25,000/-

2

22/5/2014

414836

1,50,000/-

3

16/10/2014

426799

98,000/-

4

17/10/2014

426800

98,000/-

5

10/11/2014

539136

98,000/-

All the above cheques were drawn on Corporation Bank, Vidyaranyapura Branch, Bengaluru. In addition to the above, a sum of Rs. 6,000/-was also paid by the complainant to the accused by way of cash in the month of December-2014. On demand for repayment of the loan amount given by the complainant, the accused towards discharge of his liability, issued a cheque bearing No.155870, in favour of the complainant dated 11-12-2015, for a sum of Rs. 7,75,000/-, drawn on the State Bank of India, Wilson Garden Branch, Bengaluru. The said cheque, when presented for its realisation by the complainant, came to be returned unpaid with the banker’s endorsement dated 15-12-2015 as “Exceeds arrangement”. After the dishonour of the said cheque, the accused paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/-to the complainant through cheque dated 19-12-2015. Since the remaining balance amount was not paid by the accused, the complainant got issued a statutory demand notice to the accused dated 21-12-2015 which was duly served upon the accused. In spite of the service of legal notice, the accused failed to repay the balance amount of the loan amount due to the complainant, which constrained the complainant to institute a criminal case against the accused in the Trial Court in C.C.No.3800/2016.

3. The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through his counsel. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, as such, the Trial Court proceeded to record the evidence wherein, to prove his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-8 and closed his side. The accused got examined one Sri.D. Krishnappa, but did not produce any documents in his support.

4. The Trial Court after recording the evidence led before it and hearing both side, by its impugned judgment dated 10-04-2017 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay total fine amount of a sum of Rs. 8,30,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top