Karnataka High Court
M/S Gift Work vs Dignity Store on 3 February, 2023
-1-
CRL.RP No. 1310 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1310 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
M/S GIFT WORK
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS
1. SRI. C. VIJAYA SARAVANA @ VIJI
S/O CHINATHAMBI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2. SRI. B. RAVI KUMAR
S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
NO.16, 1ST FLOOR, P.K. COLONY,
FOOD GODOWN ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560027.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
SUMA
Location:
HIGH DIGNITY STORE
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS
KARNATAKA MANAGING PARTNER
VIVEK CHANDRAMANI,
NO.202-204, 1ST FLOOR,
BRIGADE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VINAY SWAMY C., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
-2-
CRL.RP No. 1310 of 2019
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
24.10.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LVIII A.C.M.M., IN
C.C.NO.52747/2015 AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED BY THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19.09.2019 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MAYO HALL BENGALURU CITY IN CRL.A.NO.25158/2017.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the judgment of conviction dated 24.10.2017 passed by the LVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.52747/2015 convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and consequent sentence to pay fine of Rs.7,59,500/-. The petitioners have also called in question the judgment dated 19.09.2018 passed by the XXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.25158/2017 by which, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court was upheld.
-3-CRL.RP No. 1310 of 2019
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arraigned before the Trial Court. The petitioners were the accused and the respondent was the complainant.
3. The records of the Trial Court disclose that there was a running trading account between the complainant and the accused for several years and in respect of the invoices till 03.01.2015, the accused had passed on a cheque for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 01.01.2015 and had instructed the complainant to tender it for encashment on 15.01.2015. However, the said cheque returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. The complainant therefore, caused a notice of demand on 14.02.2015, which was received by the accused, who replied on 27.02.2015 denying their liability to an extent of Rs.5,00,000/- but admitted the liability only to an extent of Rs.3,74,758/- claiming therein that the complainant had supplied goods worth Rs.5,06,199/- between 26.01.2015 and 16.03.2015 and that the complainant had received a sum of Rs.1,31,441/- through three cheques dated 26.01.2015, 02.02.2015 and 07.02.2015. The complainant, thereafter initiated the prosecution of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable -4- CRL.RP No. 1310 of 2019 Instruments Act. The Trial Court recorded the sworn statement of the complainant, took cognizance and issued process to the accused. The accused appeared and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant was examined as PW.1 and he marked Exs.P1 to P9. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused No.2 was examined as DW.1 and accused No.1 was examined as DW.2 and they marked Exs.D1 to D9.
4. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the complainant proved that the accused had drawn the cheque in question towards discharge of the debt namely, value of 32 invoices, which were marked as Ex.P9 and thus, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.7,59,500/- and awarded compensation of Rs.7,57,000/- to the complainant.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, the accused filed Crl.A.No.25158/2017 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court secured the records of the Trial Court, heard the counsel -5- CRL.RP No. 1310 of 2019 for the complainant and the accused and after re-appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accused had admitted the issuance of cheque and Ex.P9 demonstrated that the accused had acknowledged their liability to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and had drawn the cheque in question towards discharge of the said liability. The Appellate Court therefore, dismissed the appeal.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the present revision petition is filed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submitted that last of the invoices, which was marked in a bunch as Ex.P9, was an invoice dated 03.01.2015 for a sum of Rs.1,22,812/- and that cheque in question was dated 01.01.2015. It is stated that if the cheque was drawn on 01.01.2015, with instruction to tender the cheque on 15.01.2015, then the invoice value of Rs.1,22,812/- must have been included in the said cheque too. He therefore, submitted that the liability of the accused was only to the extent of Rs.3,74,758/-.
-6-CRL.RP No. 1310 of 2019
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that the cheque in question was handed over to the complainant on the date of the last invoice namely on 03.01.2015 and the complainant was instructed to submit the cheque for encashment on 15.01.2015. He submitted that Ex.P9(a) is the endorsement made by the accused on the invoice dated 03.01.2015, whereby the accused had admitted the issuance of the cheque in question against other cheques issued. He therefore, submitted that there was no dispute regarding the drawing of the cheque as well as signature of the accused on the cheque. He also submitted that in the evidence of the accused, they did admit that the cheque in question was drawn by them. He therefore, submitted that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were justified in drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused as well as the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant. I have also perused the records of the Trial Court, its judgment as well as the judgment of the Appellate Court.
-7-CRL.RP No. 1310 of 2019
10. Ex.P9 is the bunch of invoices commencing from 09.11.2014 till 03.01.2015. On the last invoice dated 03.01.2015, the accused had made an endorsement "paid by cheque No.000049 dated 01.01.2015 for Rs.5,00,000/- against other cheques issued." This endorsement is not disputed by the accused. Therefore, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were justified in drawing a presumption against the accused under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused did not produce any material before the Trial Court to establish that there was no liability to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as on 01.01.2015. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were justified in convicting the petitioners/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There is no error in appreciation of evidence or the application of law to the facts and circumstances of the case warranting interference by this Court.
Hence, this revision petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
-8-CRL.RP No. 1310 of 2019
The amount in deposit before this Court or the Trial Court is ordered to be released to the respondent.
The Registry is directed to forthwith return the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court records.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46