Karnataka High Court
Smt Roopa Rani W/O Pradeep Kumar vs P Thippeswamy S/O Pathanna on 25 June, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1097 of 2008
BETWEEN:
Smt. Roopa Rani,
Wife of Pradeep Kumar,
No.354/1, Venkataswamy Reddy Layout,
8th Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore. ...PETITIONER
(Smt. Roopa Rani, Petitioner [absent] )
AND:
P. Thippeswamy,
Son of Pathanna,
M/s. Krishna Weigh Bridge,
1st Gate, APMC Yard,
Yeswanthapur,
Bangalore - 560 022. ...RESPONDENT
(By Shri. K.M. Murari Mouni, Advocate)
*****
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
2
praying to set aside the judgment dated 7.8.2008 passed by the
XXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-37)
Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.943 of 2007 and the order
dated 17.7.2007 passed by the XII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, in C.C.No.25247 of
2006.
This petition coming on for Hearing this day, the court
made the following:
ORDER
The learned Counsel for the petitioner was permitted to retire on 13.6.2013 and thereafter, the matter is continuously being listed for final hearing and there is no representation for the petitioner. Even the Counsel for the respondent remains absent. Therefore, the petition is addressed on merits.
2. The petitioner was the accused before the court below for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act' for brevity).
It was case of the complainant that the present petitioner had issued a cheque dated 15.6.2006, drawn on Corporation 3 Bank, Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore, for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in repayment of the loan, which, when presented for encashment, was returned with an endorsement that there were insufficient funds in the account and therefore, the complaint.
3. The matter was contested and it was denied that there was any kind of relationship between the petitioner and the respondent - complainant. It was her defence that she had lost several cheque leaves, out of which, the cheque that was the subject matter of the complaint, was one and it was sought to be misutilised by the complainant. This defence was sought to be established by tendering evidence, but the court below has found that after losing the cheques, the petitioner had not taken any action to intimate her banker, to stop payment against the said cheque. Her claim that she had indeed written such a letter to the banker, was not established. It was also contended that there was no compliance with Section 269 of the Income- 4 tax Act, 1961, in that, under the said provision, any payment of more than Rs.20,000/- at that point of time, was to be paid through an account payee cheque or a demand draft, which the trial court has also rejected, on the ground that the violation of the provision of law, by itself, would not dislodge the case of the complainant and accordingly, has convicted the petitioner and imposed a punishment of payment of fine of Rs.12,00,000/- out of which, Rs.10,00,000/- was to be paid as compensation to the complainant - respondent. The same having been challenged in appeal, the appellate court has dismissed the appeal. It is that which is under challenge in the present revision petition.
4. There is no point of law or error of jurisdiction that is sought to be raised in the grounds urged, except the findings of fact, which again are supported by reasons by the trial court as well as appellate court.
5
Hence, there is no warrant for interference and the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv