IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1497 OF 2014 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.10 OF 2014 IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1497 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
M/S DHARAMASHASTH COMPUTERS ACADEMY(R), HOLELKERE ROAD CROSS, CHITRADURGA, BY ITS PARTNER SRI A V MURTHI S/O ANANDA SETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS SHRIVARI KRUPA, BURUJANAHATTY ROAD CHITRADURGA-577501 (BY MS. SOWMYA.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI: NAGARAJAPPA S H, ADVOCATE) AND N.J. SAMPATH KUMAR S/O N JAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF M/S S K INFOTECH DEALER OF COMPUTERS ... PETITIONER PERIPHERALS, PRINTERS AND UPS 1ST CROSS, FORT ROAD KAMANA BHAVI EXTENSION CHITRADURGA-577501.
(BY MS. HARITHA.R. ADVOCATE FOR ... RESPONDENT SRI: PARASHURAM R HATTARAKIHAL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ORDER DATED 9.12.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DIST. S.J., CHITRADURGA IN CRL.RP.NO.63/2013 AND MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2010 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. C.J. (JR. DN.) AND J.M.F.C., CHITRADURGA IN C.C.NO.206/2003 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT BY ENHANCING THE SENTENCE FOR IMPRISONMENT OF TWO YEARS AND IMPOSE THE FINE OF RUPEES, DOUBLE THE CHEQUE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONER AS COMPENSATION BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.10 OF 2014 BETWEEN N J SAMPATH KUMAR S/O N JAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS PROPRIETOR M/S S K INFOTECH DEALERS OF COMPUTERS, PERIPHERALS, PRINTERS & UPS 1ST CROSS, FORT ROAD KAMANABHAVI EXTENSION CHITRADURGA-577501 ... PETITIONER (BY MS. HARITHA.R. ADVOCATE FOR SRI: PARASHURAM R HATTARAKIHAL, ADVOCATE) AND M/S DHARMASHASTHA COMPUTER ACADEMY (R) HOLALKERE ROAD CROSS CHITRADURGA REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI A V MURTHY S/O ANANDA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS SRIVARI KRUPA BURUJANAHATTI ROAD CHITRADURGA-577501 ... RESPONDENT (BY MS. SOWMYA.R., ADVOCATE FOR NAGARAJAPPA S H, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13.10.2010 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. C.J. (JR. DN.) AND J.M.F.C., CHITRADURGA IN C.C.NO.206/2013 AND CONFIRM BY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 09.12.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA IN CRL.A.NO.82/2010 BY ALLOWING THIS R.P.
THIS CRL.P C/W CRL. RP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R M/s. Dharmashasth Computers Academy(R) was the complainant in C.C.No.306/2003. The Academy represented by its partner instituted the said proceedings for dishonour of the cheque issued by the accused herein for Rs.2,84,450/-. The cheque was dated 12.09.2002. The same was dishonoured for ‘insufficient funds’. The transaction between the parties was with regard to purchase of computer peripherals and other spare parts. Before the Court below, the complainant examined himself as PW-1 and relied on documents Exs-P1 to Ex-19. In rebuttal, accused produced Ex-D1 a letter written by the complainant to D.C. Suresh, Thippeswamy and Dayananda for collecting Rs.1,78,000/- from the accused. However, relying on the entry done in the Statement of Accounts Ex-D2, the trial court found that only a sum of Rs.1,84,450/- was due by the accused in respect of the aforesaid transaction and accordingly, while allowing the complaint, sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs.2.00 lakhs and out of the said fine amount, Rs.1,85,450/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.82/2010 and the complainant filed Crl.R.P.No.63/2013 seeking enhancement of sentence. Both the proceedings were clubbed and by a common order dated 9.12.2013, the appellate Court dismissed Crl.A.No.82/2010 filed by the accused as well as Crl.R.P.No.63/2013 filed by the complainant. While rejecting the revision petition, the lower Appellate Court has observed that Ex-P8 viz., statement of accounts discloses debit entry for Rs.1.00 lakhs in favour of the complainant Dharmashasth Computers and therefore, the appellate Court also was of the opinion that a sum of Rs.1.00 lakhs was already repaid by the accused. This finding, in my view, is contrary to the entries found in Ex-P8.
3. I have perused Ex-P8. The entry relating to debit of Rs.1.00 lakh is dated 2.03.2000, whereas, the cheque in question was issued on 12.09.2002 acknowledging the debt or liability due by the accused as on the date of issuance of the cheque. In the absence of any evidence to show that subsequent to the issuance of the said cheque, the accused has paid any part of the aforesaid sum of Rs.2,84,450/-, the courts below have committed an error in recording a finding that the accused has paid a sum of Rs.1.00 lakhs towards discharge of the aforesaid debt. Therefore, the impugned order to that extent cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Crl.P.No.1497/2014 is allowed.
The conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act is confirmed. The sentence awarded by the court below is modified and the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3.00 lakhs, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Said fine amount shall be paid to the complainant by way of compensation.
Consequent to the above order, the petition filed by the accused in Criminal Revision Petition No.10/2014 is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-