Karnataka High Court
Sri Ishwar S/O Laxman Narayankar vs Sri Mallikarjunswami on 29 September, 2011
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HHIGEE COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD sare rine mae 29° payor seemmunpt abies BEFORE IE HON' BLE MR. JUST ICE AN. AND BY Ro Ri ppy. CRIMINAL REVISION I ae cd Tr ION No. 2306) 200 Jo" BETWEEN: Sri. Ishwar S/o. Laxman Nat rayankar," ;: Age:53 years, RY o. Mankil lla, oa : Dharwad.: Boar PLE TEPIONER ¥ (By Shrils. Shetty . 'Ady ocat @) AND: I. Sri. Mal allikarjunswami-' _Age:Major, | .. K/a:Navalur, Tatuk:Dharwad, >. District: Dharwad. ".. Sin¢e deceased by his LRs. I(a) Smt: Manjula W/o:.Late Mallikarjun, Age: Major, R/o. Navalur, ~ Dharwad. " V(b) Vhandava Murthy S/o. Late Mallikarjunswami, 6 Bo USES USSG Age:20 vears, R/o. Navalun RESPONDENTS (By Shri. Rajashekar R. Gunijall Advocate fot RIG A & By) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 397 C Ode i Criminal Procedure by the advocate for-the petiti jones. praying," that this Hon'ble Court may be pieased to set, aside-the judgment and order regarding sentence dated 17/06/2966 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge <Sr-Dn.y and. C.I.M., Dharwad in C.C.No.830/2001, Con aimed by he 'order dated 31/10/2006 passed by the P rl. (S.J LAr adit 'rh. A. No. 19/06, This petition coming on ror 'hearing this day, the court made the fe lowing :- ar ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the: petitioner.
fe
2. Fhe petitioner Was th eae cused in a case for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments "Act, $88 lo lereinafterreterred to as the "Act" for brevity). The stitioneér having. contested the proceedings, the trial court had allowed the complaint and had imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- .-theugh the-cheque was for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The same has i _-been challenged in appeal and the appellate court has alfirmed amount, exceeding twice the amount of the cheque was in order if the interest that would have accrued on the ameouri, ts taken into account. The said judgment in appesl is tnder'.
challenge in the present petition. co ow) = The learned counsel has urged S averal eidiutids which are indeed a repetition of the ton urged' before the trial court as well as before the. appellate | » court, - As noted by the appellate court, ther "spol ndent he id flloted ne procedure in initiating proceedings and the requitemtents of the Section were met insolai as the compla dint was congerned. The defence that was sought te_be urged by the present petitioner, however, was not taken to its logical ¢ onelusi on by the petitioner tendering A "vebuttal evidence at the'trial and therefore, the courts below naving held that the complaint was to be allowed cannot be faulted, Plow ever, from a reading of Section 138 of the Act. t "maximuni-iine that could be imposed could only be twice the The trial court was therefore without i.
i deoed cm oO oo a i amount of the idrisdiction in imposing a fine of Rs.25,000/- when the cheque J I iB i was for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The fact that out of the fine amount, Rs.20,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedtire "to thes. respondent and Rs.5,000/- to be retained-as fine by thes State is? no consolation and it cannot be sustaine the = the court was not precluded from aali ny i interest on, the; a mount of the cheque. There is nO such piovision in Scatiog 138 of Cr.PC, to take into accou Int thei int terest th at might have accrued on the amonnt. The ceoaplati is notin the nature ofa suit for reeateny id 'therefore 'ihe guestion of payment of interest may not | aris se. Po that extent, the appellate court was not justified: in confirming the judament on the ground that the fine amount of Rs.25,0 000, - is acceptable if the interest on the a cheque « Mount | S taken into account. This cannot be sustained. A, Mecordingly, the petition 1s allowed in part. The fine ~\aimount of Rs. 25,000/- is reduced to Rs.20,000/- of which Rs, 15,G00/- may be paid as compensation to the respondent and Rs.5,000/- may be retained as fine by the State. Th ey & petitioner having deposited a sum of Rs.10.000/-, shall deposit the remaining amount of Rs.f0.000/- within a period of 'tour weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order:
It is noticed that the complainant has died during the pendency of these proceedings and that his legal representatives have been brought on record. Therefore, the. said Tegal representatives are permitted to stép, inte. the shoes of complainant and withdraw the. menies that they may be entit to.
the led The incidental comentions imsotar as the legal liabilitv being absent cte.; were appropriately to be established by tendering rebuttal evicenee, which is found wanting. Therefore, there is-no ground for interference on those aspects. Sd/-
JUDGE