IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.674 OF 2011 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.513 OF 2010 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.675 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.674 OF 2011 BETWEEN MR VASANTH KUMAR S/O.LATE RAGHAVA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT.MOILY COMPOUND KULASHEKAR, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: JEEVAN K, ADVOCATE) AND K SRINIVASA NAYAK S/O.LATE SUBBANNA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT KASTHURI NIVAS, HARIDAS LANE MANNAGUDDA, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI: N RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2011 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC, MANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.398/2008 AND ORDER DATED: 5.11.2008 PASSED BY THE JMFC-IV COURT MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, IN C.C.NO.1130/2008.
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.513 OF 2010 BETWEEN .MR VASANTH KUMAR S/O.LATE RAGHAVA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT.MOILY COMPOUND KULASHEKAR, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: JEEVAN K, ADVOCATE) AND SMT SHOBHA NAYAK W/O SRINIVAS NAYAK AGED 56 YEARS R/A KASTURI NIVAS HARIDAS LANE MANNAGUDDA, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT RESPONDENT (BY SRI: N RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.399/2008 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SJ, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED:5.11.2008 IN C.C.NO.1127/2008 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE JMFC-IV COURT MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNDA BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION.
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.675 OF 2011 BETWEEN MR VASANTH KUMAR S/O.LATE RAGHAVA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT.MOILY COMPOUND KULASHEKAR, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: JEEVAN K, ADVOCATE) AND SMT SUJATHA NAYAK D/O.SRINIVASA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT KASTHURI NIVAS, HARIDAS LANE MANNAGUDDA, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI: N RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.4.2011 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT, AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.401/2008 AND ORDER DATED: 5.11.2008 PASSED BY THE JMFC-IV COURT MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, IN C.C.NO.1119/2008.
THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The case of the complainants/respondents in Cri.R.P.No.675/2011, Crl.R.P.No.513/2010 and Crl.R.P.No.675/2011 is that, they lent a loan of Rs.37,375/-, Rs.60,083/- and Rs.1,02,142/- respectively to the accused for business needs. The accused had undertaken to repay the same with 22% interest per annum. Interest was being paid for sometime. Thereafter, the accused failed to return the principal amount, as well as the interest payable. Hence, he issued cheques bearing No.091907 dated 03.01.2007, No.792165 dated 23.12.2006 and No.091905 dated 29.12.2006, all drawn on Dena Bank, Kankanady Branch, Mangaluru, towards discharge of the debt. When the complainant presented the said cheques for encashment, the same were returned with an intimation that the funds were insufficient.
2. Legal notices were issued to the accused. There was no reply. Hence, complaints were filed alleging offence under Section-138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On trial, the accused was convicted and was directed to pay sum of Rs.46,500/-, Rs.75,000/- and Rs.1,38,000/- as fine and out of the said sum, amount of Rs.45,000/-, Rs.73,000/- and Rs.1,36,000/- were ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and in default the accused had to undergo simple imprisonment for three months (Crl.R.P.No.674/2011), simple imprisonment for five months (Crl.R.P.No.513/2010) and simple imprisonment for six months and rigorous imprisonment for two months (Crl.R.P.675/2011).
3. Aggrieved by the same, appeals were filed before the Appellate Court. The appeals were dismissed. Hence, the present revision petitions.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the courts below committed error in convicting the accused. That there is no material in order to accept the case of the complainant. That there is no legally dischargeable debt. Hence, he pleads that the revision petitions be allowed.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents defends the same.
6. On hearing learned counsels, I ’am of the considered view that there is no merit in these petitions.
7. In order to substantiate the case, the complainant K.Srinivasa Nayak was examined before the court below as PW-1. He produced the cheques issued by the accused, which were marked as Exhibit – P1, Notice at Exhibit-P3 and the postal acknowledgement at Exhibit-P4 in each case. There was no reply to the legal notice. In his evidence, PW-1 has narrated the manner in which the cheque was issued and the subsequent dishonor. Considering the said evidence, learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the above offence. PW-1 has categorically stated that the cheques were issued in furtherance of the repayment of the loan. This evidence has not been rebutted by the accused.
8. It is relevant to note that before the courts below the revision petitioner/accused took up a plea that cheques were issued by him as security in respect of the transaction that took place between him and complainants. But the accused failed to substantiate the said defence with cogent evidence. The accused did not step into the witness box nor did he examine any witness in support of his contention that the cheques in question were issued by him as security. In the said circumstances, both the courts have come to the conclusion that the cheques were issued by the revision petitioner/accused towards repayment of legally recoverable debt due to the complainant. Even on going through the records, I do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the courts below. No other grounds are urged in the revision petitions. I do not find any merit in the revision petitions.
Accordingly, the revision petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss