Karnataka High Court
R Narayana Reddy vs M Krishna Murthy on 28 August, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
Crl RP 457/2008
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.457/2008
BETWEEN:
R. Narayana Reddy,
S/o Ramalinga Reddy,
Aged about 54 years,
Gattamadamangala village
And Post, Andersonpet,
KGF-563 122.
Petitioner
(By Sri D. Venugopal, Adv.)
AND:
M.Krishna Murthy,
S/o Murugesh,
Aged about 74 years,
No.18, 20th 'B' Cross,
Ejipura, Bangalore-560 047.
Respondent
(By Sri J. Prakash, Adv.)
This criminal revision petition is filed under
Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
praying to set-aside the order of conviction dated
25.11.2005 passed by the XIV ACMM, Mayo Hall,
Bangalore, in C.C.No.30099/2003 and set-aside the
order dated 02.01.2008 passed by the IV Addl. City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in Crl.A. No.
15056/2006.
Crl RP 457/2008
2
This revision petition coming on for admission this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
There is concurrent findings of Courts below that petitioner has committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The trial court has disbelieved the version of defence that cheque was misused by complainant to initiate the complaint. The accused had also made an unsuccessful effort to prove that cheque was mutilated and therefore, bank should have returned the cheque with an endorsement 'mutilated'. D.W.1 was examined as a witness. The trial court on proper appreciation has rejected the evidence of DW-1. The accused had not caused reply to the legal notice. The trial court on appreciation of evidence of complainant held that complainant has proved that accused had issued cheque to discharge legally recoverable debt. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption available under Section 139 of N.I. Act.
Crl RP 457/20083
3. The Judge of the first appellate Court, on re- appreciation of evidence, has confirmed the findings of trial Court.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner/accused submits that the Trial Court had not given sufficient opportunity to accused to lead defence evidence. Therefore, matter may be remanded to the Trial Court for reconsideration for providing opportunity to accused to lead defence evidence.
5. The learned counsel for respondent/complainant would submit that sufficient opportunity was given to accused by the Trial Court. In fact, DW-1 was examined on behalf of accused, but the accused failed to give evidence.
6. The trial court recorded statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure on 04.06.2005. The accused pleaded that he would adduce defence evidence. Thereafter, accused had made an Crl RP 457/2008 4 application under Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure to establish that the GPA holder of complainant was working in State Bank of Mysore at Urgam Branch, KGF on which the dishonoured cheque was drawn by accused.
7. The learned trial Judge, on consideration of application and hearing learned counsel for parties, rejected the application by order dated 05.07.2005 and posted the case to 14.07.2005 for defence evidence. On 14.07.2005, accused was absent and exemption application was accepted by trial Court. The case was posted to 18.07.2005. On 18.07.2005 accused was present and counsel for accused filed a memo. The case was posted to 22.07.2005. On 22.07.2005 no evidence was adduced by accused. The case was posted to 27.07.2005. On 27.07.2005, accused did not adduce evidence. On 29.07.2005, learned counsel for accused prayed for time to produce stay order. The case was adjourned to 01.08.2005. In the meanwhile, the accused had approached this Court in Crl.R.P.No.1235 Crl RP 457/2008 5 of 2005 challenging the order of dismissal of application filed by accused under Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Crl.R.P No.1235/2005 was disposed of by this Court on 12.08.2005. Thereafter, accused was pleading time to produce copy of order dated 12.08.2005. Several adjournments were granted. On 22.08.2005, certified copy of the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.1235/2005 was produced before the trial Court. The learned counsel for accused sought for issuance of summons to Manager of State Bank of Mysore, Urgam Branch. After several adjournments, the Manager of SBM was examined as D.W-1. Thereafter, accused did not lead evidence. In the circumstances, learned Judge treated defence evidence as closed heard the learned counsel and passed judgment convicting the accused for an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. In view of what has been narrated above, the submission of learned counsel for accused that Trial Court had not given sufficient opportunity to accused is untenable. Crl RP 457/2008 6
8. The learned first appellate Judge, on re- appreciation of evidence, has confirmed the findings of the Trial Court.
9. 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 the petitioner.
10. In the case on hand, the accused by his conduct has demonstrated that his intention was to protract the proceedings. Therefore, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm