1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D.HUDDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1071/2015
BETWEEN:
PADMANABHA
S/O.LATE. NARAYANA MULYA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT. VIDAYANAGARA HOUSE,
MUDIPU POST, KAIRANGALA,
NARINGANA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT- 574 219.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
GOPALAKRISHNA
S/O. SEETHARAMA ACHARYA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT VRS COMPOUND,
NETTARKERE, POST VITTAL,
BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT - 574 243.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ISMAIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
2
SET
ASIDE
THE
AND
ORDER
DATED
08.07.2015 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 12/2012 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE AND THE JUDGEMENT DATED
30.12.2011 IN CC NO. 61/2010 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., BANTWAL, D.K. AND
THIS REVISION PETITION BE ALLOWED BY ACQUITTING
THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 23.06.2023 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The
revision
petitioner
being
aggrieved
and
dissatisfied by the concurrent judgments of conviction and
sentence passed against him in CC No. 61/2010 passed by
the Court of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Bantwal, D.K.,
affirmed by the III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K.,
Mangalore vide Judgment dated 30.12.2011, has preferred
this revision.
2. Parties to this revision are referred to as per their
rank before the trial court for convenience.
3
3. Brief facts leading up to this revision are as under:
complainant and accused were known to each other. In the
first week of January 2007, accused borrowed a sum of
Rs.38,000/- to meet his urgent needs with an assurance to
repay the same within thirty days to together with interest
at the rate of 15% p.a. It is the case of the complainant
that, he advanced the said loan amount and in the first
week of February 2007, he requested the accused to repay
the said amount. In discharge of the said debt, accused
issued two cheques dated 15.2.2007 for Rs.19,000/- each
drawn
on
Vijaya
Bank,
Vitla
Branch.
Complainant
presented the said cheques for encashment. But, they
were dishonoured for want of "insufficient funds" in the
account of the accused as per memo dated 4.6.2007
issued by the Bank. Once again, the complainant
presented the said cheques but, they were again
dishonoured. Therefore, complainant got issued a statutory
notice on 7.6.2007 calling upon the accused to pay the
cheque amount. The said notice was duly served on the
accused on 9.6.2007 but, he has issued a false reply on
4
14.6.2007.
Therefore,
complainant
presented
the
complaint under Sec.200 of Cr.PC against the accused for
the offence punishable under Section.138 of the NI Act.
4. After filing the complaint, the trial Court took
cognizance of the offence, recorded the sworn statement
of the complainant and issued process against the
accused. Pursuant to the summons, accused appeared
before the trial Magistrate and was enlarged on bail.
Thereafter substance of accusation was recorded against
accused for the offence under Sec.138 of NI Act. Accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the
guilt of the accused, complainant himself was examined as
PW.1 and also examined one more witness by name
Sanjeeva Billava as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P21
closed complainant's evidence.
5. Thereafter, the accused was questioned under
Sec.313 of Cr.PC so as to enable him to answer the
incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of
5
the complaint. He denied his complicity in the crime and
did not choose lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
6. The learned trial Magistrate on hearing found the
accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.138
of NI Act and passed the judgment of conviction and
sentence as under:
"The accused is found guilty and
convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of
N.I.Act.
Further, the accused is sentenced
to pay a fine of Rs.54,500/-. Failing wich he
shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6
months. The entire amount if recovered
shall
be paid
to
the
complainant
as
compensation under Section 257(3) of
Cr.P.C."
7. This judgment of conviction and sentence was
challenged by the accused by preferring an appeal before
the III Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru
12/2012. The learned appellate Court after hearing the
arguments
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.