This revision is filed by the accused under Section 397

of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence passed by Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C.,

Chitradurga, in C.C.No.1314/2011 dated 12.06.2015 and

confirmed by 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in

Crl.A.No.30/2015 vide judgment dated 06.10.2015.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are 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 has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from

complainant for his family necessities and issued a cheque

dated 05.02.2011, drawn on Nava Karnataka Bank Credit

Co-operative Society Ltd., Chitradurga Branch, Chitradurga,

in favour of the complainant. When the said cheque came to

be presented, it was bounced for insufficient of funds.

Thereafter, the complainant has got issued a legal notice

calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. In spite

- 3 -

of service of legal notice, accused failed to repay the cheque

amount and hence, the complainant has filed a complaint.

4.

The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of

the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.I. Act) and issued

process. The accused has appeared through his counsel and

was enlarged on bail. The plea under Section 138 of the N.I.

Act was recorded and accused denied the same. Thereafter,

the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was

recorded to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence

appearing against him in the case of the prosecution. The

case of the accused is of total denial. Further, the accused

was also got examined one witness as DW1 and he himself

was got examined as DW2. He placed reliance on Ex.D1 to

Ex.D4.

5.

After

hearing

the

arguments

and

after

appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned

Magistrate has convicted the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by imposing a

sentence of imprisonment for a period of three months with

- 4 -

a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with a default clause of imprisonment

for a period of one month.

6.

Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction

and order of sentence, the accused has approached the

learned II Additional Sessions Judge, in Crl.A.No.30/2015.

The learned Sessions Judge, after re-appreciating the oral

and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal by

confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

passed by the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by these

concurrent findings, the revision petitioner is before this

Court.

7.

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner. Learned counsel for the

respondent is absent. Perused the records.

8.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

would submit that after filing this revision, the insolvency

proceedings initiated by the revision petitioner in 2011 itself

were disposed of, declaring the revision petitioner as an

insolvent. He would contend that the liability to the tune of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards the complainant was admitted, but

- 5 -

since, the revision petitioner was declared as insolvent, the

proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act being quasi-

civil, the issue will be regarding whether criminal Court can

proceed with the matter and whether the accused can seek

discharge needs to be considered.

9.

There is no dispute of the fact that accused has

issued a cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- and accused who himself

claims to have filed the insolvency proceedings under Ex.D4,

admitted that his liability towards the present complainant

was to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. The allegations of the

complainant also disclose that accused has issued cheque

towards a liability of Rs.1,00,000/- only. The insolvency

proceedings filed before the Principal District Judge, the

complainant/respondent herein was added as respondent

No.1

therein.

The

‘schedule

A’

discloses

that

the

accus