1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.55/2011

BETWEEN:

SRI. NIRANJANA MURTHY

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

S/O BASAVALINGAIAH H.S.

NEAR CHANDANA SCHOOL

PARVATHAMMA LAYOUT

THINDLU VILLAGE

VIDYARANYAPURA POST

BENGALURU.

... PETITIONER

(By Sri. SHYAM KOUNDINYA A.S., ADV.,)

AND:

M/S. MEENAKSHI DEVELOPERS

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR

SR. R.S. RANGANATH

No.22/1, 4^TH MAIN

BETWEEN 8^TH AND 9^TH CROSS

MALLESWARAM

BENGALURU.

... RESPONDENT

(By Sri. JEEVAN K, ADV.,)

THIS CRL. R.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W

401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED

2

13.12.2010 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-VI, BENGALURU IN

CRL.A.NO.1038/2007

AND

ORDER

DATED

18.1.2006

PASSED BY THE PASSED BY THE XVIII ACMM & XX ASCJ,

BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.29705/2002.

THIS CRL. R.P. IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This revision petition is filed by the accused under

Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, calling in question the legality and

correctness of the order of the learned Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru City (FTC-VI), dated 13.12.2010 passed in

Criminal Appeal No.1038/2007, whereby the judgment

and order of conviction passed by the learned

Magistrate, Bengaluru City, dated 18.01.2006 in

C.C.No.29705/2002

is

confirmed

modifying

the

sentence to pay fine of Rs.1,75,000/- instead of

Rs.2,05,000/-,

in

default,

to

undergo

simple

imprisonment for six months and out of the fine amount

awarding

compensation

of

Rs.1,70,000/-

to

the

3

complainant and to confiscate Rs.5,000/- to the

Government.

2.

The respondent/complainant filed complaint

under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

alleging that the accused has committed an offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (‘Act’ for short), which came to be

registered as C.C.No.29705/2002 on the file of the

learned XVIII ACMM and XX ASCJ, Bengaluru city. On

the issuance of the summons to the accused, the

accused appeared and got himself released on bail. The

accused not pleaded guilty, claimed to be tried for the

charges framed against him under Sections 138 and

139 of the Act.

3.

It is the case of the complainant that the

accused approached him for the construction of a

house. Accordingly, an agreement was entered into

between them. The construction work was completed

4

by the complainant and the possession of the building

was handed over to the accused and the accused was

due

to

pay

balance

of

Rs.1,87,396.25

towards

construction cost of the building and to clear the same

Ex.P2/cheque

bearing

No.932474

for

a

sum

of

Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Bengaluru

was issued, which was returned to the drawer on

presentation for encashment with an endorsement

“Payment stopped by the drawer”. The legal notice

issued by the complainant was duly served on the

accused and a reply notice was also issued.

4.

The complainant got himself examined as

PW.1 and marked documents Exs.P1 to P7(a), whereas

accused got examined himself as DW1 and another

witness as DW2, marked Exs.D1 to D10 to substantiate

his defence. The learned Trial Judge convicted the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

the Act passing sentence to pay Rs.2,05,000/-, in

5

default

of

payment

of

fine,

to

undergo

simple

imprisonment for six months. Out of fine amount,

Rs.2,00,000/- shall be awarded as compensation to the

complainant and Rs.5,000/- to be appropriated towards

expenses of the State Government. Being aggrieved by

the same, accused preferred appeal. The order of

conviction came to be confirmed modifying the sentence

as aforesaid in the preceding paragraphs. Hence