1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.52/2018

BETWEEN:

VANILLA RODRIGUES,

W/O. MELWYN RODRIGUES,

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

R/AT. DOOR NO. 25/25/1866/25(3),

M.R. BHAT LANE, 4^TH CROSS,

NEAR S.C.S. GIRLS HOSTEL,

JEPPU MANGALORE – 575 001

(BY SRI.SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

GRACY D’SOUZA,

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

W/O. RONALD D’ALMEDA,

R/AT. DIVINE COTTAGE,

VALENCIA CHURCH HALL ROAD,

1^ST CROSS LEFT, VALENCIA,

KANKANADY MANGALORE,

D.K. – 575 001

…

PETITIONER

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADV.)

THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ

WITH SECTION-401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE

THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2017, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL

NO.71/2018, ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE AND JUDGMENT

2

DISTRICT 27.02.2016, IN C.C.NO.1302/2014, IN THE

COURT OF J.M.F.C. (V COURT), MANGALORE.

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

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The present criminal revision petition is filed under

Section 397 of Cr.P.C., calling in question the judgment

dated 03.11.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2016,

by the IV^th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina

Kannada, Mangalore, which confirms the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2016, in

C.C.No.1302/2014 passed by the J.M.F.C. (V Court),

Mangaluru.

2.

It is stated that the respondent herein has

given hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only)

to the petitioner-accused and towards its repayment a

cheque bearing No.175558, dated 01.01.2014, drawn on

State Bank of Mysore, Kankanady Branch, Mangalore was

issued by the petitioner and when the said cheque was

presented

for

collection,

through

Syndicate

Bank,

Kankanady Branch, Mangalore, it was returned with an

endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thus, the cheque was

dishonoured.

3

3.

Thereafter, the complainant-respondent got

issued a legal notice on 18.03.2014. But inspite of service

of notice on the petitioner, the petitioner-accused neither

replied nor made payment and therefore with these

allegations, the respondent herein had lodged a complaint

under Section-138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

4.

The Trial Court on considering the evidence on

record has convicted the petitioner herein for the offence

punishable under Section-138 of the N.I. Act and imposed a

fine amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and to pay the said fine

amount to the respondent and on default to pay the fine,

the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period

of six months. The said judgment of conviction and

sentence was challenged in a criminal appeal before the

appellant court and the appellate court has dismissed the

appeal of the petitioner by confirming the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial

court. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said two

judgments, the accused has preferred the present revision

petition.

4

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that the respondent – complainant has misused

the cheque. When the said cheque was lost by her and

accordingly the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the

police on 08.11.2012. Further, it is the submission made

that the petitioner has given instruction to the bank for stop

payment as per Exhibit-D1. Further, submitted that lending

money by the Government Servant, as admittedly in the

present case the respondent is a government employee

working in the Labour Department, is not permissible. Thus

violated law as, she has not disclosed the lending of

amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Higher Authorities of the

Department.

Therefore,

there

is a

contravention

of

clause(a) of sub-rule(4) of Rule-16 of the Central Civil

Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

7. Further, submitted that the r