Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31317
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
H.P. SANDESH, J
N.S. RANGAPPA – Appellant
Versus
G. MAHANTHAMMA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1301/2015 | CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1300/2015 | CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.327/2019 | CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.328/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SHASHIDHARA
For the Respondents: SRI. ABHILASH H.S., SRI. C. VINAY SWAMY
The Court affirmed that the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the issuance of cheques as legitimate debt settlements, rejecting unsubstantiated defenses regarding chit transactions.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 397(1) and 401 - Cheque dishonor - Revision petitions filed against conviction and sentence for dishonor of cheques amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively - The complainant proved that cheques were issued towards the loan amount which were dishonored - Defenses raised by the accused regarding chit transactions and prior suit dismissals were rejected by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court as being unsubstantiated - Evidence showed consistent findings against the accused, who did not provide adequate proof of their defenses. (Paras 24-27)
(B) Standard of Proof - The distinction between civil and criminal cases - Burden lies heavily on the complainant to prove that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legal debt, as opposed to mere assertions of the accused regarding chit transactions. (Paras 8 and 9)
(C) Nature of Revision Jurisdiction - Limited scope of interference in factual findings of the lower courts unless there is a clear manifest error. (Para 12)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of criminal revision petitions filed. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the errors in the trial court's decisions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. discussions on case law relevant to the burden of proof. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. analysis of evidential inconsistencies presented by the accused. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 5. judicial findings on the validity of the transaction. (Para 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. court assessment of evidence and dismissal of revision petitions. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. final order and conclusion of the judgment. (Para 28) |
CAV ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent in respective petitions. These revision petitions are filed by the accused who are husband and wife against the order of conviction and sentence and also confirmation order passed by the First Appellate Court in all the cases wherein claim was made by the complainant that Cheque was issued for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each in Crl.R.P.No.1301/2015, Crl.R.P.No.1300/2015 & Crl.R.P.No.327/2019 and in another case the Cheque was issued for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- challenging the concurrent finding in respective cases.
2. The factual matrix of each case of the complainant Smt.G.Mahantamma who is the common complainant in all the cases and accused N.S.Rangappa who is the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.1301/2015 and Crl.R.P.No.1300/2015 in other two criminal revision petitions, Smt.Kavitha.G.H who is the wife of N.S.Rangappa who is the revision petitioner in other two cased and claim of complainant that accused that is N.S.Rangappa had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by issuing the Cheque which is the subject matter. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to pay an amount of Rs.2,05,000/- and in respect of the Kavitha.G.H is concerned in C.C.No.17270/2010 (Crl.R.P.No.327/2019) and complainant contend that she has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and issued a Cheque dated 21.10.2010 and also an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in respect of C.C.No.20630/2010 (Crl.R.P.No.328/2019) vide Cheque dated 10.02.2010 and Trial Court convicted and sentenced to pay an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- as against Rs.2,00,000/- and in respect of Rs.1,50,000/- an amount of Rs.2,10,000/-. It is the specific case of the complainant before the Trial Court in all the cases that the accused persons having received the money issued the Cheque in favour of the complainant and those Cheques were dishonored and despite of statutory notice, the accused failed to make the payment and filed complaint. The Trial Court has taken cognizance on the complaint of complainant in all the cases and complainant has been examined as PW1 and got marked the documents in respect cases. The accused was subjected to 313 statement and accused himself examined as DW1 in all the cases and the husband/accused examined one witness as DW2 as he is also one of the chit member. In Crl.R.P.No.327/2019 and Crl.R.P.No.328/2019 the complainant examined herself as DW1 and examined her husband as DW2 in both the cases and got marked documents in respective cases. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, convicted and sentenced the accused in all the cases. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, appeals are filed before the First Appellate Court by the respective parties and in the appeal also the First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and hence, these revision petitions are filed before this Court.
3. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that in respect of the Cheque bounce case also the complaint filed in O.S.No.1554/2010 for recovery of money against N.S.Rangappa and the said suit came to dismissed. The counsel also would vehemently contend that based on same transaction suit was filed and the same defense was taken in civil suit as well as the
