CRL.R.P.No.1456 of 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1456 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
KHALEEL KHAN P
S/O PEERKHAN
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT PHARMACIST
2ND CROSS, TIPPU NAGARA
ARASIKERE TOWN
HASSAN - 573 103
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRANAV RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. CHANDINI S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHANKARAPPA
S/O SIDDARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O HARNAHALLY VILLAGE
ARASIKERE TALUK
HASSAN - 573 122
…….RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHANMUKHA G C, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.R.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
07.11.2022 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.51/2021 ON THE FILE
OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
HASSAN AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; b)
AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.02.2021 IN
C.C.NO.601/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, ARASIKERE AND c) PASS ANY ORDER/S AS DEEMS FIT
TO THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
CRL.R.P.No.1456 of 2022
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 26.10.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section
397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C, is by the accused challenging
his conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in
CC.No.601/2017 for the offence punishable under Section
138 of N.I.Act, which came to be confirmed by the
Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.51/2021. The trial Court
sentenced the accused to pay fine of Rs.6 lakhs in default
to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Out of
the fine amount realized, the trial Court has directed that
Rs.5,95,000/- to be paid to the complainant by way of
compensation.
2.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to by their rank before the trial Court.
3.
Complainant filed a private complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C against the accused, alleging offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, contending that
3
he and accused are well known to each other. On
11.07.2017, accused for the purpose of repaying loan
taken for construction of his house requested for loan of
Rs.5 lakhs. Complainant agreed for the same and on the
same day advanced loan of Rs.5 lakhs. In this regard
accused executed a demand Promissory Note-cum-
Consideration Receipt, agreeing to repay the same with
interest at 2% p.a.
3.1 On the next day that is on 12.07.2017,
accused issued a cheque for Rs.5 lakhs with a direction
to present it on 18.09.2017. Accordingly on 18.09.2017,
complainant presented it through Corporation Bank,
Arasikere branch. However, it was dishonoured on the
ground "Funds insufficient". The complainant brought this
fact to the notice of the accused. He did not make any
arrangement for paying the amount due. Therefore, on
22.09.2017, complainant got issued a legal notice to the
accused calling upon him to pay the amount due. Despite
due service of the notice, the accused has neither chosen
4
to pay the amount nor sent any reply. Without any
alternative complaint is filed.
4.
Accused appeared before the trial Court and
contested the matter. Though he admits that the cheque
in question belongs to him drawn on his account
maintained with his banker and it bears his signatures,
he has disputed that he borrowed hand loan of Rs.5
lakhs and executed demand Promissory Note-cum-
Consideration Receipt on 11.07.2017 and on the next
date he had issued the cheque in question towards
repayment of the said loan. Accused has taken up a
specific defence that the son of complainant was running
chit fund business and he had participated in the said
chit fund transaction and issued the cheque/Demand
Promissory Note and misusing the same, the complainant
has filed the complaint. The accused has also contended
that complainant is not having financial capacity to
advance him Rs.5 lakhs.
5.
Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5
6.
In order to prove the allegations against the
accused, complainant has examined himself as PW-1. He
has examined one witness to the demand Promissory
Note as PW-2 and got marked Ex.P1 to 7.
7.
During the course of his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C accused has denied the incriminating
evidence.
8.
He has examined himself as DW-1 and relied
upon Ex.D1.
9.
Vide
the
judgment
and
order
dated
11.02.2021, the trial Court convicted the accused and
sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.6 lakhs in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
10. Accused took the matter in appeal before the
Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.51/2021. Vide the impugned
judgment and order dated 07.11.2022, the Sessions
Court dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the
order of the trial Court.
6
11. Being aggrieved by the orders of the trial
Court as well as the Sessions Court, the accused is
before this Court contending that the findings of both
orders are contrary to the well settled principles of law
and is liable to be set aside. Both courts have failed to
appreciate the fact that there was no legally enforceable
debt to attract the provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act.
The
Courts
below
have
failed
to
consider
the
discrepancies and contradict