Karnataka High Court
Mrs R Vijayalakshmi vs Ge Bayer Silicones (India) Pvt Ltd on 22 June, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.603 OF 2008
BETWEEN :
Mrs. R Vijayalakshmi,
Wife of Sri. B.R. Rangaswamy,
Aged about 53 years,
Residing at No.101,
Railway Parallel Road,
Kumarapark West,
Bangalore-560020. ...PETITIONER
( By Shri. B Sharath Kumar, Advocate )
AND:
Ge Bayer Silicones (India) Private Limited,
having its office at
No.275, 4th Cross, 4th Main,
4th Phase,,Peenya Industrial Area,
Represetned by its Law Officer and
Asstistant Company Secretary
Mr Muthuraman. ...RESPONDENT
( By Shri. Shobith N Shetty , Advocate for M/s. M.V.Kini and
Company )
This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read
with 401 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, by the advocate for the
2
petitioner praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set
aside the judgment and order dated 1.4.2008 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.671/2006 on the file of the XXXVI Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and set aside the judgment and
order dated 22.3.2006 passed by the XX Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate and XXII Addditional Small Causes
Judge, Bangalore City in C.C.No.32698/2001 and acquit the
accused.
This Criminal Revision Petition is coming on for Admission,
this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was the accused in a case for an offence punishable under 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for brevity). It was the defence of the present petitioner-accused before the Trial Court that there was a relationship of lessor and lessee as between the petitioner and respondent-herein. The respondent had prematurely sought to terminate the lease, and in terms of the agreement, there was a lock-in period within which the respondent was not enabled to vacate the premises, and in such event, the respondent was to pay penalty. In addition, it was 3 the claim of the petitioner that damage was caused to the premises in question in respect of which the petitioner was entitled to recover such damages. In this regard an estimate had been prepared through a civil engineer and a Civil Suit had also been instituted for recovering the same. Insofar as the cheque issued for refund of security amount that had been paid under the terms of lease, the petitioner had instructed the bank to stop payment since the petitioner was entitled to recover damages from out of the amounts so repayable. It is that, which has been cited as the cause of action for the complaint. This defence having been negated both by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, the present revision petiton is filed.
3. Since on the face of it, the petitioner claims she has instituted a civil suit for alleged damages that was suffered and in the absence of the denial that the petitioner had, in fact, issued the cheque in question and it was duly signed, the claim that there was no consideration for the cheque amount, in that, the same was claimed as a set off in respect of the damages that 4 was claimed, is not a tenable defence that would rebutt the presumption that would arise under Section 139 of the Act. In that view of the matter, both the Courts below were right in their view that the petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption that would arise under Section 139 of the Act. There is no error committed by the Courts below.
4. In that view of the matter, the petition lacks merit and is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE lnn