Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 20651
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.P. SANDESH, J
DINESH POOJARY – Appellant
Versus
MR. SADASHIVA PRABHU – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.336 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI P P HEGDE, SRI GOURAV
For the Respondents: SRI ANIKETH KANIKELLAYA, SRI SACHIN B S
The court established that liability for cheque dishonor remains despite account closure, affirming that successive cheque presentations do not negate the legal claim.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Conviction for dishonor of cheques - The evidentiary weight of admissions from both parties regarding business transactions proves liability - The courts reinforced that multiple presentations of cheques are permissible - Legal notice issued without reply substantiated the claim. (Paras 2, 6, 12)
(B) Revisional Jurisdiction - The court clarified that it cannot engage in re-appreciating evidence unless a gross miscarriage of justice is demonstrated - The principle that legal debts must be recognized regardless of account status was upheld. (Paras 9, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted under the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing cheques that bounced due to an account closure. The legal dispute arose over a personal loan related to a business transaction with the respondent.
Findings of Court:
Sufficient evidence established that the issuer admitted both the transaction and the issuance of cheques, which led the court to uphold the conviction from lower courts and dismiss the revision petition.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was liable for the issuance of cheques despite claims that they were tied to a brother's financial dealings; whether presenting closed account cheques constitutes legal grounds for the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court reinforced the notion that in financial transactions linked to the business, both parties' admissions outweighed disputes regarding timing or individual involvement in the accounts. The legal authority upholds that cheque presentations remain valid despite previous dishonor, emphasizing the continuity of legal obligation.
Result: The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction established through cheque issuance and evidence of financial transaction. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. presentation of bounced cheques deemed permissible under legal obligation. (Para 4 , 7 , 10) |
| 3. revisional jurisdiction does not allow for evidence reappraisal; only errors of law can be addressed. (Para 8 , 11 , 12) |
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. This revision petition is filed against the conviction order passed under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the revision petitioner with regard to the issuance of Cheques at Ex.P1 to P4 which have been bounced with the reason ‘account closed’. The legal notice was issued by the complainant but reply was not given by the revision petitioner and hence, the complaint was filed against the revision petitioner. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as PW1 and also examined one witness as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P13. On the other hand revision petitioner/accused examined himself as DW1 and his brother examined as DW2 and also examined two more witnesses as DW3 and DW4 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D4. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record comes to the conclusion that in view of the admission on the part of DW1 for issuance of cheques and also considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the petitioner/accused. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, an appeal was preferred by the revision petitioner before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also taking into note of the documents at Ex.P13 as well as Ex.P1 to P4 which have been admitted by DW1 in his evidence and also taken note that there is no reference of Ex.P13 and comes to the conclusion that DW1 and DW2 throw the burden on each other in their effort to thwart the liability.
3. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record in view of admission on the part of PW1 for issuance of Cheque and also considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said judgment an appeal is filed before the appellate Court. The appellate Court taking into note of document Ex.P13 as well as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 which have been admitted by the PW1 in the evidence and also taking into note of evidence of PW1 and PW2 who are the brothers. There is no reference to Ex.P13 and comes to the conclusion that evidence of DW1 and DW2 throw the burden on each other in their effort to thwart the liability. On appreciation, comes to the conclusion that when there was a transaction between them, the same is admitted, issuance of Cheque is also the business of Arecanut is admitted and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by conviction and confirmation, the present appeal is filed.
4. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner brought to notice of this Court that the material available on record clearly discloses that it is only a financial transaction with the brother of the accused, not with the accused. The counsel also would vehemently contend that Cheques are presented twice, even after the Cheque was returned with an endorsement ‘ account closed ’.
5. The counsel in support of his argument he relied upon the judgment reported in ILR 2007 KAR 2706 in case of Sri.H.Nanjundappa Since deceased by his legal representatives his daughter and another V/s H.Hanumantharayappa and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.4 of the judgment once the Cheque is returned with an endorsement closure of account, there is no need to present the same, the same is only with an intention to avoid the limitation.
6. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court Ex.P13 which was confronted to DW1 in the cross- examination, it discloses that the transaction was taken place in the year 2006, not in 2007 as contended by PW1 and PW2. The counsel also would submits PW2 wh
