Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.
Chandrashekar – Appellant
Versus
H.M. Ningaraju – Respondent
Crl.R.P.No. 871 of 2014
Decided On : 17-04-2023
CRIMINAL REVISION - CONVICTION UNDER NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT - Cr.P.C. Sec. 397, 200, 138 - The court discussed the provisions of Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with dishonor of cheques, and Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C., which mandates the recording of the accused's statement. The court emphasized that the recording of the statement is a crucial stage in the trial, ensuring the accused's right to explain incriminating evidence against them. The failure to properly record the accused's answers was deemed a violation of natural justice, leading to the decision to set aside the conviction and remand the case for retrial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant had filed a private complaint after the petitioner failed to respond to a legal notice demanding payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had not properly recorded the petitioner's statement under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C., as many answers were illegible. This non-compliance with mandatory provisions was prejudicial to the accused.
Issues: Whether the trial court's failure to properly record the accused's statement under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. constituted a violation of the accused's rights and warranted a retrial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the recording of the accused's statement under Sec. 313 is not a mere formality but a critical aspect of ensuring a fair trial. The failure to comply with this requirement necessitated a retrial.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the case to the trial court for retrial from the stage of recording the accused's statement under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C.
JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Revision Petition under Sec. 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') is filed by the accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru (for short the 'Trial Court) in C.C.No.3339/2008 dtd. 27/6/2013 and the judgment and order passed by Court of V Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru (for short the 'Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.201/2013 dtd. 28/7/2014.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Facts leading to filing of this petition as revealed from the records narrated briefly are, the respondentcomplainant had filed a private complaint under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( for short, the 'Act') contending that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs from him in the month of May, 2008 and towards repayment of the said amount, he had issued a cheque bearing no.395136 drawn on the Mandya District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Arakere Branch, Mandya. When the said cheque was presented for realization, the same was dishonoured by the drawee bank with shara "Insufficient funds". The respondentcomplainant thereafter got issued a legal notice dtd. 6/9/2008 to the petitioner and in spite of service of the same, the petitioner had not paid the amount demanded in the legal notice nor had issued any reply to the said legal notice. It is under these circumstances, the respondent had filed a private complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. In the said proceedings, after service of summons, the petitioner had appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty.
4. The respondent - complainant to prove his case had examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. The petitioner however, did not lead any defence evidence. The trial court by its judgement and order dtd. 27/6/2013 had convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under sec. 138 of the Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.3, 25, 000.00 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The appeal filed by the petitioner - accused against the said judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court was dismissed by the appellate court in Crl.A.No.201/2013 dtd. 28/7/2014. It is under this factual background, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. He submits that the answer given by the petitioner during the course of his questioning by the trial Court while recording his statement under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C are not legible. Noncompliance of requirement of Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C vitiates the entire trial and also the order of conviction passed against the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and he prays to dismiss the petition. However, he did not dispute the fact that the answers of accused recorded by the trial Court during the course of recording his statement under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C are not legible.
7. I have carefully heard the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material available on record.
8. The statement of accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded by the trial Court on 27/3/2013. A perusal of the same would go to show that the trial Court had framed as many as six questions and answer to the said questions have been recorded separately one after the another. Except the answer which was given by the petitioner for question nos.1 and 5, the answer given to the other questions by the petitioner, which has been recorded by the trial Court, are not legible. In the answer to question
The recording of the accused's statement under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. is a mandatory requirement that ensures the accused's right to a fair trial and the opportunity to explain incriminating evidenc....
The trial court can convict under Section 138 in the absence of the accused if justified, emphasizing the quasi-criminal nature of such proceedings.
The trial Court may proceed in the absence of the accused in Section 138 cases, dispensing with the Section 313 statement if the accused's absence is unjustified.
The trial court can convict under Section 138 in the absence of the accused if justified, emphasizing the quasi-criminal nature of such proceedings.
The court established that the accused has the right to file a written statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. even after a delay, provided it does not prejudice the complainant, reinforcing the pr....
Typographical errors in witness testimony can be corrected under Section 311 CrPC to ensure justice, emphasizing the court's role in administering justice rather than focusing on procedural errors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of properly examining the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC to allow them to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
