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

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

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