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

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 6523

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1110 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

R BABU RAO,

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

S/O LATE B.RAMACHADNRA RAO,

R/AT PROPERTY NO.1635,

NEW NO.91, 6TH MAIN,

‘E’ BLOCK, 2ND STAGE,

RAJAJINAGAR,

BENGALURU-560010. ….PETITIONER

(BY SRI S GANESH SHENOY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MANISH H SANGHVI,

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

S/O HIRACHANDJI J SANGHVI,

RESIDING AT NO.69,

AMIBKA CLOTH MARKET,

D.K.LANE, CHICKPET CROSS,

BENGALURU-560053. ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI R S UMESH, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED

25.07.2019 PASSED BY THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL

AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-69) IN CRL.A.NO.1140/2016 AND

ALLOW THE SAID APPEAL IN CRL.A.NO.1140/2016 AND SET

ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.09.2016 PASSED BY THE XX

ADDL.

C.M.M.,

BENGALURU

IN

C.C.NO.12956/2013

AND

DISMISS

THE

SAID

COMPLAINT

IN

C.C.NO.12956/2013.

2

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN

HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.09.2023, COMING

ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’ THIS DAY, THE COURT

MADE THE FOLLOWING:

This revision petition is filed under Section 397 of

Cr.P.C. by revision petitioner challenging the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by XX Additional

Chief

Metropolitan

Magistrate,

Bangalore,

in

C.C.No.12956/2013, dated 03.09.2016 and confirmed by

LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions judge, Bengaluru

City (CCH-69), in Crl.A.No.1140/2016, vide judgment

dated 25.07.2019.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties here in

referred with the original ranks occupied by them before

the trial court.

3.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

as under:

The accused is well acquainted with complainant for

more than eight years and he approached the complainant

3

for financial assistance of Rs.2,00,000/- in order to

renovate his house, to pay the loan interest to the bank

and to perform the marriage of his daughter. The

complainant advanced a hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the

accused on 01.03.2012. After repeated requests, the

accused issued two cheques dated 18.03.2013 for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- each towards repayment of a legally

enforceable debt.

4.

It is also asserted that the accused has also

agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2% per month towards

the said loan amount. The complainant has presented the

said cheques for encashment and the said cheques were

returned with an endorsement as ‘funds insufficient’. The

complaint then got issued a illegal notice to the accused

and accused has given an evasive reply. Hence, the

complainant claims to have filed this complaint under

Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence

punishable

under

Section

138

of

the

Negotiable

Instruments Act 1881 (for short ‘N.I. Act’).

4

5.

The learned Magistrate after recording the

sworn statement has taken cognizance of the offence and

issued a process against the accused. The accused has

appeared through his counsel and was enlarged on bail.

The plea under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is framed and

same is read over and explained to the accused. The

accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.

To

prove

the

guilt

of

the

accused,

the

complainant was got examined himself as PW1 and he

placed reliance on eleven documents marked at Ex.P1 to

Ex.P11. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable the accused to

explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in

the case of the complainant. The accused has denied the

incriminating evidence against him and further got

examined himself as DW1. He has also placed reliance on

eight documents marked at Ex.D1 to Ex.D8.

7.

After

hearing

the

arguments

and

after

appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the

5

learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and

imposed a fine of Rs.3,10,000/- to the accused with a

default sentence. This order is being challenged by the

accused before the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions

Judge, Bangalore, in Crl.A.No.1140/2016. The learned

Sessions

Judge

after

re-appreciating

the

oral

and

documentary evidence has dismissed the appeal by

confirming the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the learned Magistrate.

8.

Against these concurrent findings of conviction,

the accused is before this Court.

9.

Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner

and learned counsel for respondent. Perused the records.

10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

would contend that, both the Courts below have failed to

appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in proper

perspective. He would contend that admittedly, the father

6

of the complainant was an advocate representing the

accused in HRC proceedings regarding recovery of his

property and under the guise of settlement, he has

obtained signatures on blank cheques and they are being

now misused. It is also submitted that subsequently, as the

complainant could not get possession, he changed the

advocate and these cheques were now used by the

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top