2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.547 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
M G SIDDAPPA
S/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
TEACHER, ALLURE VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK,
DIST:DAVANAGERE-577 006.
... PETITIONER
( BY SMT: SARITHA. A.L., FOR SRI. SRIDHAR.N.HEGDE,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
MALLIKARJUNA M,
S/O KOTRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
# 337/25A, SRI SHIVA KRUPA,
GANESH LAYOUT,
BEHIND KSRTC BUS STAND,
DAVANAGERE-577 006. ….RESPONDENT
( BY SRI: N. RAMAKRISHNA., FOR SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD,
ADVOCATES.)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION
397
CR.P.C
BY
THE
ADVOCATE
FOR
THE
PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
28.4.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN CRL.A.NO.40/2014 IN
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED
15.3.2014 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
AND J.M.F.C., DAVANAGERE IN C.C.NO.687/2012 AND
ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCE.
- 2 -
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
This revision petition is filed by the petitioner
under sections 397 and 201 of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973(for short hereinafter referred to as
'Cr.P.C.'), wherein the legality and propriety of the
judgment passed by learned II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Crl.A.No.40/2014 dated
28.04.2015 is assailed wherein the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by learned I
Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere dated 15.03.2014
in C.C.No.687/2012 is confirmed.
2. The revision petitioner before this Court is
accused before the trial court and the respondent in this
case is the complainant before the trial court.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be
referred as 'accused' and 'complainant' as per their
respective ranks before the trial court.
- 3 -
4. The brief case of the complainant before the
trial court is that, the complainant and accused are
known to each other. The complainant is working as a
Field officer at M/s. Indofil Company, Davanagere. In
the first week of June 2009, the accused approached
the complainant and requested him for a hand loan for
his domestic and legal necessity to the tune of
Rs.1,00,000/-. After satisfying the requirements and
necessity of the accused, the complainant gave Rs.1.00
lakh in cash to the accused. It is further contended that
the accused promised that he would return the same
within one month. After one month, the accused did not
return
the
amount
as
promised.
Therefore,
the
complainant requested him number of times to repay
the amount. Subsequently, on 02.8.2009, the accused
issued a cheque bearing No.136896 dated 08.08.2009
for Rs.1.00 lakh drawn on SBI Bank, S.S. Complex
Road, N.R. Road, Davanagere. As informed by the
accused, the complainant presented the said cheque for
encashment to his banker bank, but the said cheque
was returned with an endorsement by the bank as
- 4 -
'insufficient funds' in the account of accused. Thereafter
on 20.08.2009, the complainant got issued legal notice
to the accused demanding payment of money. The
notice was served on the accused on 01.09.2009.
Inspite of that, the accused neither replied the notice
nor paid the amount. Hence, the complainant filed a
complaint before the II JMFC court, Davangere for
offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred as 'N.I'. Act
for short).
5. The accused appeared before the court and
after recording of plea, the complainant got examined
himself as PW-1 and got marked six documents as Exs-
P1 to P6. Thereafterwards, the statement of the accused
as required under section 313(1) (b) Cr.P.C. was
recorded.
The
accused
denied
the
circumstances
appearing
against
him
in
the
evidence
of
the
complainant. The accused gave his defence evidence as
DW-1, but no documents were marked for the accused.
After hearing the arguments, learned JMFC convicted
the accused for the offence punishable under section
- 5 -
138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of two months. Further under section
357(3) Cr.P.C., the accused was directed to pay a sum
of Rs.1,35,000/- to the complainant towards the
compensation and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved
by the said judgment, the complainant preferred an
appeal before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.40/2014.
Learned
sessions
judge
by
the
judgment
dated
28.04.2015 dismissed the appeal filed by the accused
and confirmed the judgment passed by JMFC Court
which is now assailed by the revision petitioner/accused
in this revision.
6. Heard learned counsel Smt. Saritha A.L. for
Sri. Sridhar N. Hedge for the petitioner and learned
counsel Sri. N. Ramakrisha for Sri. M.R. Hiremathad for
the respondent.
7.
Learned
counsel
for
the
revision
petitioner/accused
argued
that
the
judgment
of
conviction passed by both the courts are arbitrary,
- 6 -
illegal and not in accordance with