Karnataka High Court
Smt.Umamaheshwari @ Umabharathi W/O H ... vs H S Chikkappa on 5 September, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
Crl RP 1138/2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1138/2009
BETWEEN:
Smt.Umamaheshwari @
Umabharathi, W/o H. Sreenivasa,
Age 34 years Residing
C/o.R M Ramaiah
Near Central School
Ramanagar I Cross
Bandihatti Post
Cowl Bazaar, Bellary. ..Petitioner
(By Sri B.L.Kumar, Adv.)
AND:
H S Chikkappa
s/o.Sidramappa
Age 71 years,
Agriculturist
r/o.Basavana Beedi
Holalkere Taluk
Chitradurga District. ..Respondent
This criminal revision petition is filed under
Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
praying to set aside the judgment dated 13.11.2009
passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTC),
Chitradurga in Crl.A No.75/2008 confirming the order
of conviction dated 21.7.2008 passed by the Civil Judge
(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Holalkere in CC No.652/2005.
Crl RP 1138/2009
2
This petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2 in C.C.No.652/2005. Accused No.1 is the husband of petitioner.
2. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and also Section 420 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. On 10.04.2004, the petitioner and her husband had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from respondent complainant with an assurance to repay the same within five or six months. But they failed to repay the money. When the complainant demanded accused to repay the money, accused No.1 issued a cheque drawn on account No.5513 held by accused No.2 (petitioner herein) in Chithradurga Grameena Bank, Holalkere Branch. On presentation, the cheque was dishonoured on the ground, the account on which cheque was drawn was not held by accused No.1. Accused No.1 with Crl RP 1138/2009 3 dishonest intention of cheating complainant, drawn cheque on the account held by his wife/accused No.2.
4. The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence held petitioner and accused No.1 guilty of an offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was before first appellate Court. The first appellate Judge on re-appreciation of evidence, confirmed the findings of Trial Court.
5. The law is fairly well settled that this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction, does not sit as a Court of Second Appeal. This Court can interfere with the impugned judgment if it is demonstrated that the Courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner.
6. On reconsideration of evidence, I find that petitioner and her husband (accused No.1) had common intention to cheat the complainant. Accused No.1 had drawn the cheque on the account held by petitioner Crl RP 1138/2009 4 knowingfull well that he had no authority to draw the said cheque and the cheque will be dishonoured. The petitioner had given the cheque belonging to her, to her husband (accused No.1) knowing full well that her husband (accused No.1) cannot draw the cheque on the account held by her. The petitioner had the intention to deceive the respondent by parting her cheque with her husband (accused No.1). The said cheque was drawn by accused No.1 in favour of respondent. The said cheque was issued by accused No.1 to respondent with an intention to deceive the respondent. The petitioner had shared common intention with the accused No.1 to deceive the respondent. The Courts below on proper appreciation of evidence have held the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. In the circumstances, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm