IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.437/2015 BETWEEN :
Smt. R. Uma W/o late Hanumantharayappa Aged about 54 years R/at No.11, Akshyanilaya Ground Floor, Narasamma Layout Subhash Chandra Bose Road Jaraganahalli, Bengaluru-560 078.
(By Sri S.N.Mahesh, Advocate) AND :
Sri Rajesh C. Viraktamath S/o Chandrashekar Aged about 38 years Residing at No.A/2, 604, Saravathi Block National Games Village Koramangala Bengaluru-560 030.
(Respondent served and unrepresented) … Petitioner … Respondent This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401(5) of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the judgment dated 17.04.2015 passed by the LVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, in Criminal Appeal No.1480/2014 and to set aside the judgment/order of conviction dated 02.12.2014 passed by the XXII ACMM, Bengaluru in C.C.No.9529/2012, by allowing the above petition by acquitting the petitioner.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the accused challenging the judgment passed by LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.1480/2014, dated 17.4.2015 whereunder the appeal came to be dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by XXII Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru City in CC.No.9529/2012, dated 2.12.2014.
2. Though the respondent is served with notice, has remained absent. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that there is no legal enforceable debt and the respondent-complainant has not proved the said fact. But in spite of the same, the Court below has convicted the accused and the first appellate Court has confirmed the said order. He further submitted that PW.1 during the course of cross- examination has admitted that three cheques have been issued as a security when an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been paid by him. He further submitted that the notice under N.I. Act which has been issued was claiming for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- but the actual recoverable debt was only Rs.50,000/-. Under such circumstances, the Court below ought to have dismissed the complaint. He further submitted that even there is no sufficient proof of the said facts, the Court below has wrongly convicted the accused-petitioner. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned orders.
3. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant has not proved that there is legal enforceable debt and as such the complaint ought to have been dismissed. But as could be seen from the records and the evidence, the admitted fact in the case is that the petitioner-accused received Rs.50,000/- from the complainant as a loan and she has also issued three cheques in favour of the complainant by signing them. She has also admitted that she has not paid the said amount of Rs.50,000/- received from the complainant. The only question which remains for consideration of this Court is that cheques in question issued by the petitioner are for the purpose of repayment of the said loan amount or not. Though during the course of cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that the said cheques have been given when the loan of Rs.50,000/- was taken by the accused, as a security, as could be seen from the evidence, it clearly goes to show that there was a legal enforceable debt of Rs.50,000/- for which the said cheques have been issued by the accused that itself clearly goes to show that in order to discharge the said existing debt in favour of the complainant the said cheques have been issued by the accused. Even the records would indicate that though blank cheques were signed and given in the hands of the complainant, as per Section 20 of the N.I.Act when the cheque has been signed and handed over to the complainant it enables the complainant to fill the said cheque and make it full cheque and thereafter it can be submitted to the bank for encashment. Under such circumstances, the contention raised by the petitioner that there was no legally enforceable debt and the said cheques have been issued only for the purpose of security and blank cehques have been issued only by signing does not hold any water and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. As could be seen from the order of the trial Court the trial Court after considering all the materials placed, has come to the right conclusion and though the complaint is filed for Rs.1,00,000/- admittedly the accused has deposed in her evidence that she has received loan of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant and as such the trial Court convicted the accused-petitioner for Rs.50,000/- only and there is no illegality or irregularity while passing such an order. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any good grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below.
Petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed.
*ck/-
Sd/- JUDGE