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

2022 Supreme(Kar) 447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
G. BASAVARAJA, J.
Gajanan S/o. Kallappa Kadolkar - Petitioner
Versus
Appasaheb Siddamallappa Kaveri - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 2011 of 2013
Decided On : 18-11-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Deepak S. Kulkarni.
For the Respondent: Sri. B.V. Somapur.

Point of Law : Judgments and orders impugned in these revision petitions are not suffering from any legal infirmity occasioning grave injustice to the petitioner, calling for interference. [Para 24]

Headnote:

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 397(1) r/w Section 401 and 313 - Loan - Cheque dishonored -Complainant is permanent resident of Anjaneya Nagar, Belgaum and accused is his neighbour and close friend - Accused was running a business of Glass and plywood under name and style "M/s. Gajanan Glass and Plywoods." In month of January 2007, accused approached complainant seeking financial assistance of Rs.15 lakhs to meet his personal commitments and for business purpose - As complainant was on good terms with accused, who was also a neighbour, he agreed to advance a hand loan of Rs.15 lakhs to accused - Between January 2007 and June 2007, he advanced a hand loan of Rs.15 lakhs to accused and that accused agreed to repay hand loan within six months from date of last advancement - However, after repeated requests, accused issued 15 cheques for Rs.1 lakh each towards repayment of hand loan availed of by him - Cheque was issued for Rs.1 lakh bearing No.580497 dated drawn on State Bank of Mysore, M.M. Extension, Belgaum, towards discharge of said hand loan - Complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker i.e., HDFC Bank and said cheque was dishonored with an endorsement of "exceeds arrangements".

Finding of Court : Accused has not explained on what date and time complainant has insisted and on what date accused has issued those cheques to complainant - Accused chose not to reply to legal notice demanding payment of loan by complainant - Even accused has not taken any legal steps against complainant for misuse of alleged signed blank cheques - It is contention of accused that complainant being a Commercial Tax Officer, cannot insist accused or anybody to issue signed blank cheques in any legal transactions - Accused need not issue signed blank cheques to complainant in any circumstances - However, it is defence of accused that he has issued 15 signed blank cheques to complainant; such an improbable defence set up by accused cannot be accepted - Courts below have properly appreciated evidence on record in a proper perspective with provisions of law regarding presumption in detail - Both Courts below have observed the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court and passed impugned judgment in accordance with law - On re-evaluation of entire evidence placed on record, Court do not find any illegality in impugned judgments - In Court opinion, judgments and orders impugned in these revision petitions are not suffering from any legal infirmity occasioning grave injustice to petitioner, calling for interference. [Para 24 and 25]

Result : Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

1. This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397(1) r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment dated 31.10.2012 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Crl.A.No.13/2012 confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the JMFC II Court, Belgaum, in C.C.No.1592/2009 dated 09.09.2011 wherein the revision petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,28,000/- in default to undergo a simple imprisonment for 6 months.

1.1 [Note: The revision petitioner/accused has preferred 15 separate revision petitions against the judgments of the Court below including the above case in Crl.R.P.Nos.2011-2025/2013 in respect of dishonor of 15 cheques amounting to Rs.1 lakh each, separate judgment is passed in each case.].

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks in the trial court.

3. The relevant facts of the case leading to this revision petition are as under:

3.1 The Complainant is the permanent resident of Anjaneya Nagar, Belgaum and the accused is his neighbour and close friend. The accused was running a business of Glass and plywood under the name and style "M/s. Gajanan Glass and Plywoods." In the month of January 2007, the accused approached the complainant seeking financial assistance of Rs.15 lakhs to meet his personal commitments and for business purpose. As the complainant was on good terms with the accused, who was also a neighbour, he agreed to advance a hand loan of Rs.15 lakhs to the accused. Between January 2007 and June 2007, he advanced a hand loan of Rs.15 lakhs to the accused and that accused agreed to repay the hand loan within six months from the date of last advancement. However, after repeated requests, the accused issued 15 cheques for Rs.1 lakh each towards repayment of the hand loan availed of by him. The cheque was issued for Rs.1 lakh bearing No.580497 dated 09.10.2009 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, M.M. Extension, Belgaum, towards discharge of said hand loan. The complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker i.e., HDFC Bank, Belgaum, on 10.10.2009 and the said cheque was dishonored with an endorsement of "exceeds arrangements" on 10.10.2009. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused on 23.10.2009 calling upon him to make payment of the entire cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice; the said notice was duly served to the accused on 26.10.2009, but he failed to make good of the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant has filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

4. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance has recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and registered the case against the accused and summons was issued to the accused. In response to the summons, the accused appeared before the court; a plea was recorded under Section 251 of Cr.P.C and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and placed reliance on six documents, which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-6. On closure of the complainant’s side evidence, a statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded to explain the incriminating evidence that appeared against the accused. The accused has denied the same and has not chosen to lead any defence evidence. On hearing the arguments, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,28,000/- . Further, learned Magistrate has directed that out of fine amount, Rs.1,25,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation.

6. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction dated 09.09.2011 in C.C.No.1592/

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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