SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top