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