IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1042 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

GANESH RAI P

S/O NARAYANA RAI,

BEHIND STATE BANK OF MYSORE

OLD POLICE STATION ROAD, KASABA

PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. JAGADIEESHA B.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MRS. SULOCHANA K. NAIK

W/O K. KRISHNAMURTHY NAIK,

R/AT NO.513, 16^TH CROSS

C.M.H. ROAD, INDIRANAGARA 2^ND STAGE

BENGALURU.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B.R. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING

TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

DATED 14.07.2011 PASSED IN C.C. NO.35708/2009 BY THE

COURT OF LEARNED XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

Crl.R.P.No.1042/2012

2

MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE AND THE JUDGMENT PASSED

BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND P.O.

FTC 3 III, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE IN CRL. A.

NO.25134/2011 DATED 17.09.2012 AND HOLDING THAT THE

COMPLAINANT HAS NOT PROVED THE GUILT OF THE

PETITIONER, SET THE PETITIONER AT LIBERTY, IN THE

INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN

HEARD

THROUGH

PHYSICAL

HEARING/VIDEO

CONFERENCING

AND

RESERVED

FOR

ORDERS

ON

20.07.2021, THIS DAY COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT

OF

ORDER

THROUGH

PHYSICAL

HEARING/VIDEO

CONFERENCING,

THE

COURT

PRONOUNCED

THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner was the accused in the Court of

learned

XIV

Addl.

Chief

Metropolitan

Magistrate,

Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 8the Trial Court9) in

C.C. No.35708/2009 who was tried for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, hereinafter referred

to as 8the N.I. Act9).

2.

The summary of the case of the complainant

in the Trial Court is that the accused had borrowed a

Crl.R.P.No.1042/2012

3

sum of `5,00,000/- from the complainant for the

construction of his building by name <Gajanana Tower=.

In order to discharge the said loan, the accused issued

two cheques to the complainant bearing cheque

No.649108 dated 28.07.2008 for a sum of `2,50,000/-

and

another

cheque

bearing

No.649109

dated

01.08.2008 for another sum of `2,50,000/-, both drawn

on Vijaya Bank, Darbe Branch, Puttur. As per the

instructions of the accused when the complainant

presented both the cheques for its realization through

its banker, the same returned unpaid with the banker9s

endorsement

<account

closed=.

Thereafter

the

complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused

demanding the payment of the cheque amount. Since

the accused failed to pay the cheque amount, the

complainant was constrained to institute a criminal case

against him in the Trial Court for the offence punishable

under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was

held wherein the complainant got herself examined as

Crl.R.P.No.1042/2012

4

PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P8.

The accused himself got examined as D.W.1 and got

marked documents from Exs.D1 to D2(a). The Trial

Court, after hearing arguments from both side and

considering the material on record, by its impugned

Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence dated

14.07.2011, convicted the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and

sentenced him accordingly.

3.

Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Trial

Court, the accused preferred an appeal in the Court of

Additional Sessions Judge and P.O., FTC - III, Mayo Hall

Unit, Bangalore (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as

8Sessions Judge9s Court9) in Crl.A. No.25134/2011.

Learned Sessions Judge, by Judgment dated 17.09.2012

while confirming the Judgment of conviction passed by

the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the

same, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

Crl.R.P.No.1042/2012

5

4.

The Trial Court and the Sessions Judge9s

C