Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200106 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MAREPPA S/O RAYAPPA NATIKAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. GOBBUR (K) VILLAGE, TQ. AFZALPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI-585213. …PETITIONER (BY SRI R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE) AND: NAGENDRAPPA S/O SHIVASHARANAPPA NIMBERGI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. FARHATABAD,
Digitally signed by TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585308. SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH …RESPONDENT Location: HIGH (BY SRI. PRADEEP S. DAB SHETTY, ADVOCATE) COURT OF KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C (OLD)/ U/SEC. 438 OF BNSS ACT (NEW) PRAYING TO a) ADMIT THE REVISION PETITION AND CALL FOR RECORDS. b) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DT. 16.04.2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 25/2023 IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DT. 14.09.2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, COURT, KALABURAGI, IN C.C NO. -2-
PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1 This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed by petitioner/accused assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.09.2022 in CC No.2521/2018 passed by the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi and the judgment and
order dated 16.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.25/2023 passed by the
Court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the Trial Court in CC
No.2521/2018. It is the specific case of the respondent/complainant that petitioner, who was acquainted to him had approached him in the month of June, 2017 and had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- and towards repayment of the said amount, petitioner had issued a cheque bearing -3-
No.179627 dated 27.09.2017 for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Kalaburagi in favour of the complainant. The said cheque on presentation for realization was dishonoured by the drawee bank with endorsement ‘Account Closed’. Therefore, complainant had got issued legal notice to the petitioner which was returned back with an endorsement ‘refused’. It is under these circumstances, he had filed a private complaint against the petitioner before the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. In the said proceedings, petitioner, who had entered appearance before the Trial Court
had claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, respondent/complainant examined himself as PW1 and got marked six documents as Ex.P1 to P6. No evidence was lead on behalf of the defence nor was any document marked in support of the defence. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides by judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.09.2022 convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.2,10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence was
-4- confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.25/2023 dated 16.04.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition has prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition.
6. Petitioner has not disputed the signature found on the
cheque in question and it is also not in dispute that the cheque was drawn on the account maintained by the petitioner in HDFC Bank, Kalaburagi Branch. The said cheque was dishonoured by the drawee bank with a shara ‘Account Closed’. Petitioner had refused to received the statutory notice issued on behalf of the respondent/complainant. Since the signature found on the cheque in question and the fact that the cheque was drawn on the account maintained by the petitioner with the drawee bank is not in dispute, a presumption under Section 139 of the N. I. Act arises against him and unless he rebuts the same by putting up a probable defence, he is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act.
-5-
7. It is the case of the petitioner that he had issued six
signed blank cheques to respondent/complainant in respect of an earlier loan transaction wherein he had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and the said cheque was misused by the respondent. Though such a defence is sought to be raised by the respondent, he has not stepped into the witness box nor has he examined any witness in support of his defence. Petitioner has also not produced any material before the Court in support of his defence. Therefore, presumption that arose against him under Section 139 of the N. I. Act stood unrebutted. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court having appreciated these aspects of the matter, have rightly convicted the petitioner for the alleged offence and the sentence imposed on him is also just and proper. Under the circumstances, I am
of the opinion that petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38/CT:PK