Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 61381
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100229/2015
C/w CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100230/2015,
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100231/2015
PARTIES IN CRL. R. P.NO.100229/2015
BETWEEN:
VIJAY S/O GURURAJ AGADI
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE
R/O: HIG 07, 101 AKSHAY PARK
GOKUL ROAD HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER.
(BY SHRI SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NAMDEV H. CHIKKANNAVAR
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: HOSALLI BUILDING,
VIVEKANAND NAGAR, GADAG,
DIST: GADAG.
…RESPONDENT.
(BY SRI. R.H.ANGADI., ADVOCATE;
SRI.PRAVEEN P.JOSHI., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W
401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 29/06/2015 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 13/2015 ON
THE FILE OF ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG AND
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 1/10/2014 PASSED IN CC NO. 404/2009 ON
2
THE FILE OF I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-I FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION
PETITION.
PARTIES IN CRL. R. P.NO.100230/2015
BETWEEN:
VIJAY S/O GURURAJ AGADI
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE
R/O: HIG 07, 101 AKSHAY PARK
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI
DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER.
(BY SHRI SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NAMDEV H. CHIKKANNAVAR
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: HOSALLI BUILDING
VIVEKANAND NAGARVGADAG
DIST: GADAG.
…RESPONDENT.
(BY SRI. R.H.ANGADI., ADVOCATE;
SRI.PRAVEEN P.JOSHI., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 AND
401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 29/06/2015 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
15/2015 ON THE FILE OF ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
GADAG AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 1/10/2014 PASSED IN CC
NO. 406/2009 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-I,
GADAG FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
3
PARTIES IN CRL. R. P.NO.100231/2015
BETWEEN:
VIJAY S/O GURURAJ AGADI
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE
R/O: HIG 07, 101 AKSHAY PARK
GOKUL ROAD HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER.
(BY SHRI SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NAMDEV H. CHIKKANNAVAR
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: HOSALLI BUILDING
VIVEKANAND NAGAR, GADAG
DIST: GADAG.
…RESPONDENT.
(BY SRI. R.H.ANGADI., ADVOCATE ;
SRI.PRAVEEN P.JOSHI., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 AND
401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 29/06/2015 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
14/2015 ON THE FILE OF ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
GADAG AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 1/10/2014 PASSED IN CC
NO. 405/2009 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-I,
GADAG FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
4
These three criminal revision petitions are filed by
the petitioner, who was the accused before I Addl. Civil
Judge and JMFC-I., Gadag (hereinafter referred as ‘trial
Court’ for short), wherein the revision petitioner-accused
was convicted and imposed sentence by judgment
dated:
01.10.2014
in
C.C.No.404/2009,
C.C.No.405/2009 and C.C.No.406/2009 for the offences
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument
Act (for short ‘N.I.Act’). The same was challenged by the
revision petitioner-accused before the Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Gadag (hereinafter referred as ‘first
appellate Court’ for short). The first appellate Court by
common order dated 29.06.2015 in Criminal Appeal
No.13/2015, 14/2015 and 15/2015, dismissed the
appeals confirming the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence.
2.
Aggrieved
by
the
same,
the
revision
petitioner, who was accused had filed these three
revision petitions. Since, these three revision petitions
5
are arising out of a common judgment passed by the
first
appellate
Court.
As
both
the
parties
i.e.,
complainant and accused are same in all the three cases
and date of judgment is also same. These three petitions
are taken together and disposed of. The petitioner will
be referred as accused and respondent will be referred
as complainant as per their respective rank before the
trial Court.
3.
The
complainant
filed
three
separate
complaints before the trial Court alleging that the
complainant and accused are good friends. The accused
was a need of money for his business and also for his
family necessity. So, he requested the complainant to
pay hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for his family necessities.
Accepting
his
request,
the
complainant
paid
Rs.3,00,000/-to the accused on 17.6.2007. But the
accused did not repay the said amount. The complainant
requested the accused to repay the amount. On
17.11.2008, the accused issued three cheques i.e., 2
6
cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- each and one cheque for
Rs.90,000/- drawn on I.C.I.C.I Bank Hubballi Branch.
Then on 26.11.2008 the complainant presented the said
three cheques for encashment before State Bank of
India of Gadag-Betageri but all the three cheques were
returned with a endorsement that there are ‘Insufficient
Funds’ in the account of accused. Therefore, the
complainant issued 3 notices in respect of each cheque
calling upon the accused to repay the amount and settle
the matter. Though the notice is served in all the three
cases, the accused neither replied the notice nor paid
the amount. Hence, complainant filed three separate
complaints before the trial Court. The trial Court
registered
three
separate
cases.
Thereafter,
the
complainant got examined himself as PW1 and also
examined 2 more witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3 and got
marked 5 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Accused
though
denied
the
incriminating
evidence
in
the
statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. but has
not led any defence evidence on his part. Then the trial
7
Court after hearing the arguments, convicted the
accused in C.C.No.404/2009 and sentenced to pay fine
of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine
amount, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of one month and ordered Rs.90,000/- as a
compensation.
Similarly
in
C.C.No.405/2009
and
C.C.No.406/2009, the accused was sentenced to pay
fine amount of Rs.1,10,000/- each, in default of
payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of
fine amount, Rs.1,00,000/- each is ordered in each
cases as a compensation to the complainant and
Rs.10,000/- is treated as fine.
4.
Aggrieved by the said judgments, the accused
preferred appeal before the first appellate Court, which
also came to be dismissed by confirming the judgments
of conviction and order of sentence. Assailing the same,
the accused-revision petitioner is before this Court by
filing these three petitions.
8
5.
Heard Shri S.B.Naik., learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri R.H.Angadi, l
