Karnataka High Court
Prakash S/O Sudhakar Kanavali vs The Janata Co Operative Credit Society ... on 18 February, 2025
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3215
CRL.RP No. 100475 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100475 OF 2024
[397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
PRAKASH S/O. SUDHAKAR KANAVALI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. FAROOQ COMPLEX,
HURLISAL RANGINKATTE-581320,
TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.J.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE JANATA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,
MAIN BRANCH, BHATKAL TALUK,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
Digitally NAGESH MADEVA DEVADIGA,
signed by
VN
VN
BADIGER AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
BADIGER Date:
2025.02.19
14:38:49 NEAR MGM TEMPLE, SHIRALI-581320,
+0530
TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
... RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 438 OF BNSS 2023 READ WITH 442 OF BNSS, SEEKING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ORDER AND
SENTENCE DATED 25.07.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC BHATKAL IN C.C.NO.283/2022, AND ALSO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR IN
CRL.A NO.145/2023, WHEREIN CONVICTED THE PETITIONER FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NI ACT AND
ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3215
CRL.RP No. 100475 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) Challenging judgment/order dated 25.07.2023 passed by Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bhatkal ('Trial Court', for short) in C.C.no.283/2022 and judgment/order dated 21.11.2024 by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar ('Appellate Court', for short) in Crl.A.no.145/2023, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri DJ Naik, learned counsel for petitioner submitted proceedings against petitioner were initiated by respondent - society by filing a complaint alleging that on 04.07.2018, one John Sudhakar Kanavali obtained loan of Rs.50,000/- from society and promising to repay same with interest after executing loan documents. At that time, petitioner herein had stood guarantor to loan. Since there was default in repayment of loan by debtor even after complainant sought repayment, petitioner guarantor had issued a cheque bearing no.221876 dated 21.06.2021 for Rs.80,000/- in favour of complainant. When same was presented on 30.07.2021, it returned dishonored with endorsement 'funds insufficient'. On 16.08.2024, complainant had issued legal notice calling for -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3215 CRL.RP No. 100475 of 2024 repayment of cheque amount. Though notice was served, there was no reply or repayment within 15 days, leading to filing of private complaint. Thereafter, sworn statement of complainant was recorded and summons issued to petitioner. After appearance, petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Complainant examined its Manager as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. Thereafter, statement of petitioner - accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC. Accused did not offer any explanation but therefore examined himself as DW1 and got marked one document as Ex.D1.
3. On consideration, trial Court convicted petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act', for short) and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.85,000/- and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 12 months. Assailing same, petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal no.145/2023 on various grounds. Without proper consideration, Appellate Court dismissed appeal on 21.11.2024. Aggrieved, this revision was filed.
4. It was submitted, both Courts failed to notice that cheque in question was not issued after receipt of demand -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3215 CRL.RP No. 100475 of 2024 notice by respondent - society, but was given as security at time of obtaining loan by John Sudhakar Kanavali, as petitioner was guarantor. Therefore, impugned judgment/orders required interference. It was submitted, provisions of NI Act would not apply in case of guarantee transaction.
5. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and order.
6. From above, point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether petitioner has made out a case for interference with concurrent findings of trial Court as well as Appellate Court?"
7. While passing judgment, learned trial Judge has taken note of petitioner's contentions as his defences. Since issuance of cheque to complainant was admitted, although as a postdated signed blank cheque, trial Court referred to ratio in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, reported in 2010 (11) SCC 441, to avail presumption in favour of complainant under Section 118 and 139 of NI Act. Insofar as contention that cheque was issued as security and not towards legally enforceable debt, it referred to decision of this Court in case of Dr.B.V.Samapathkumar v. Dr.K.G.V.Lakshmi reported in -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3215 CRL.RP No. 100475 of 2024 ILR 2006 KAR 1730. Trial Court also referred to admission during cross-examination about petitioner duly signing cheque and petitioner standing as guarantor for loan. As a guarantor, petitioner would be equally liable for loan amount as debtor. Under such circumstances, even ground that complainant had filled particulars regarding amount etc., would not by itself invalidate cheque. Trial Court also observed that there was due compliance with requirements of due presentation, issuance of notice after receipt of intimation of dishonor and filing of complaint within time stipulated under Section 138 of NI Act before proceeding to pass order of conviction. Appellate Court in appeal on re-appreciation concurred with findings. Contentions urged by petitioner being covered by decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court referred to supra, there are no grounds to admit revision petition.
8. In view of above, point for consideration is answered in negative. Hence, following:
ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE CLK CT:PA