Karnataka High Court
Sri D B Jatti vs Smt Gayathri Devi C on 13 August, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1417/2015
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NOs.1418/2015,
1419/2015,1421/2015 & 1422/2015
In CRL.R.P. No.1417/2015
BETWEEN:
Sri D.B.Jatti
S/o. late B.D.Jatti
Aged about 70 years
(Wrongly shown in
The P.C.R. as
R/o. No.51
Pattandur Agrahara
Outercircle, Whitefield
Bangalore-66)
Presently R/at
Dwarakamai, Sy.No.51
ECC road, Whitefield
Bengaluru - 560 066. ...Petitioner
(By Sri P.Chandrashekar, for
Smt. Vijetha R.Naik, Advocate)
AND:
Smt. Gayathri Devi C
D/o. Chinnappa S
2
Aged about 50 years
R/at No.12/2, Mathru Krupa
III Cross, K.N.Extension
Yeshwanthapura
Bengaluru - 22. ...Respondent
(By Sri B.Pramod, Advocate)
This Criminal Revision petition is filed under Section
397 R/W 401 OF Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order
dated 30.09.2015 passed by the LXII Addl. City Civil and
S.J., (CCH-63), Bangalore in Crl.A.No.287/2015 confirming
the order dated 03.02.2015 passed by the XII A.C.M.M.,
Bangalore in C.C.No.16149/2012 and allow the Revision
Petition and set the accused at liberty.
In Crl.R.P. No.1418/2015
BETWEEN
Sri D.B.Jatti
S/o. late B.D.Jatti
Aged about 70 years
(Wrongly shown in
The P.C.R. as R/o No.51
Pattandur Agrahara
Outercircle, Whitefield
Bangalore-66)
Presently R/at
Dwarakamai, Sy.No.51
ECC road, Whitefield
Bengaluru - 560 066. ...Petitioner
(By Sri P.Chandrashekar for
Smt. Vijetha R.Naik, Advocate)
3
AND
Sri Prasanna Kumar C
S/o. S.Chinnappa
Aged about 45 years
R/at. No.11/1, Ravi Krupa
III Cross, K.N.Extension
Yeshwanthapura
Bengaluru - 22 ...Respondent
(By Sri B.Pramod, Advocate)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 R/W 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order
dated 30.09.2015 passed by the LXII Addl. City Civil and
S.J., (CCH-63), Bangalore in Crl.A.No.289/2015 confirming
the order dated 03.02.2015 passed by the XII A.C.M.M.,
Bangalore in C.C.No.9467/2012 and allow the Rev. Petition
and set the accused at Liberty.
In Crl.R.P.No.1419/2015
BETWEEN
Sri D.B.Jatti, S/o late B.D.Jatti
Aged about 70 years
(Wrongly shown in
The P.C.R. as, R/o. No.51
Pattandur Agrahara
Outercircle, Whitefield
Bangalore-66).
Presently R/at
Dwarakamai, Sy.No.51
ECC road, Whitefield
Bengaluru - 560 066. ...Petitioner
(By Sri P.Chandrashekar for
4
Smt. Vijetha R.Naik, Advocate)
AND
Smt. Anitha R
W/o. Prasanna Kumar
Aged about 37 years
R/at. No.11/1, Ravi Krupa
III Cross, K.N.Extension
Yeshwanthapura
Bengaluru - 22 ...Respondent
(By Sri B.Pramod, Advocate)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 R/W 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order
dated 30.09.2015 passed by the LXII Addl. City Civil and
S.J., (CCH-63), Bangalore in Crl.A.No.291/2015 confirming
the order dated 03.02.2015 passed by the XII A.C.M.M.,
Bangalore in C.C.No.9470/2012 and allow the Revision
Petition and set the accused at liberty.
In Crl.R.P.No.1421/2015
BETWEEN
Sri D.B.Jatti S/o late B.D.Jatti
Aged about 70 years
(Wrongly shown in
The P.C.R. as R/o No.51
Pattandur Agrahara
Outercircle, Whitefield
Bangalore-66) Presently
R/at Dwarakamai, Sy.No.51
ECC road, Whitefield
Bengaluru - 560066. ...Petitioner
(By Sri P.Chandrashekar for
5
Smt. Vijetha R.Naik, Advocate)
AND
Shri Narayanaswamy
S/o. Madhappa
Aged about 55 years
R/at No.11/1, Ravi Krupa
III Cross, K.N.Extension
Yeshwanthapura
Bengaluru - 22. ...Respondent
(By Sri B.Pramod, Advocate)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 R/W 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order
dated 30.09.2015 passed by the LXII Addl. City Civil and
S.J., (CCH-63), Bangalore in Crl.A.No.288/2015 confirming
the order dated 03.02.2015 passed by the XII A.C.M.M.,
Bangalore in C.C.No.16150/2012 and allow the Revision
Petition and set the accused at liberty.
IN Crl.R.P. No.1422/2015
BETWEEN
Sri D.B.Jatti
S/o. late B.D.Jatti
Aged about 70 years
(Wrongly shown in
The P.C.R. as
R/o No.51
Pattandur Agrahara
Outercircle, Whitefield
Bangalore-66)
Presently R/at
Dwarakamai, Sy.No.51
6
ECC road, Whitefield
Bengaluru - 560 066. ...Petitioner
(By Sri P.Chandrashekar for
Smt. Vijetha R.Naik, Advocate)
AND
Sri. Prasanna Kumar
S/o S.Chinnappa
Aged about 45 years
R/at. No.11/1, Ravi Krupa
III Cross, K.N.Extension
Yeshwanthapura
Bengaluru-22. ...Respondent
(By Sri B.Pramod, Advocate)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 R/W 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order
dated 30.09.2015 passed by the LXII Addl. City Civil and
S.J., (CCH-63), Bangalore in Crl.A.No.290/2015 confirming
the order dated 03.02.2015 passed by the XII A.C.M.M.,
Bangalore in C.C.No.9469/2012 and allow the Revision
Petition and set the accused at liberty.
These Criminal Revision Petitions are coming on for
admission this day, the Court through video conference at
Bengaluru made the following:
ORDER
These matters are taken up through Video Conference today.
7
2. Learned counsel Sri P.Chandrashekar, for Smt. Vijetha R.Naik, learned counsel for petitioner (common in all the petitions) and Sri B.Pramod, learned counsel for respondents in all the cases are present through VC.
3. All the criminal revision petitions are preferred by one D.B.Jatti against the judgment dated 30-09-2015 passed by Appellate Court in respective criminal appeals. The details are as under:
Sl.No. Criminal Revision Criminal C.C.No. Petition No. Appeal No. 1. 1417/2015 287/2015 16149/2012 2. 1418/2015 289/2015 9467/2012 3. 1419/2015 291/2015 9470/2012 4. 1421/2015 288/2015 16150/2012 5. 1422/2015 290/2015 9469/2012
4. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping the parties are hereinafter referred in course with their ranks and status as stood before the trial Court. 8
5. The claim of the complainants in all the cases is that, petitioner/accused asked for investment of the amount from the complainants in each of the cases promising to pay interest at the rate of 18.33% per annum. Accordingly, amounts were deposited by the complainants in their respective cases and as a security for repayment of amount deposited by the complainants, cheques were issued by the accused and the details of the said cheques are morefully mentioned in the table below:
Sl. C.C.No. Cheque In favour of
Crl.R.P.No. Drawn On
No No. Complainant
1. 1417/2015 16149/2012 Bank of Baroda 538889 Gayathri Devi C.
9467/2012 157410 Prasanna Kumar C
2. 1418/2015 Corporation Bank
3. 1419/2015 9470/2012 Bank of Baroda 022844 Anitha R.
4. 1421/2015 16150/2012 Syndicate Bank 075790 M.Narayanaswamy
5. 1422/2015 9469/2012 Bank of Baroda 538890 Prasanna Kumar C
6. It is also claimed that pursuant to the deposit of the said amounts and issuance of the 9 cheques, interest was being paid by the accused to the complainants till January 2009. Thereafter, the accused committed default. The complainants' presented the said cheques for payment and the cheques were dis-honoured with an endorsement "opening balance insufficient" and "funds insufficient"
and thereafter, complainants issued legal notice. The details are as under:
Complainant Sl.
C.C.No. Dishonoured issued Legal
No Cheque No.
On notice to
.
accused on
1. 16149/2012 538889 17.11.2011 24.11.2011
2. 9467/2012 157410 17.11.2011 24.11.2011
3. 9470/2012 022844 17.11.2011 24.11.2011
4. 16150/2012 075790 18.11.2011 30.11.2011
5. 9469/2012 538890 17.11.2011 24.11.2011
Subsequently, the complainants' had filed
criminal cases on 21.12.2015. The complainants' in each of the cases presented the complaint under 10 Section 200 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
7. The learned trial Judge has took cognizance of the offence and recorded the sworn statement of the complainants' and after finding a prima facie case, registered the case against the accused and issued process. The accused on service of summons entered appearance and denied the claim of the complainants. Plea was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. In all the five cases the accused is common and the complainants are different and considering the claims, assertions, contentions, denial and in view of their common nature, all the matters are taken up together.
11
9. Accused placed appearance in each of the cases. The examination of the parties and production of documents are as under:
10. After conclusion of hearing, the learned trial judge allowed the complainants' case on 03.02.2015 and the verdict is as under:
"1. In C.C.No.16149/2012:
The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,20,000/- and in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further out of the fine Exhibits of Witnesses Witnesses Exh document examined Sl. Crl.R.P. examined on docume C.C.No. s by on behalf No No. behalf of nts by complaina of Complainants accused nts accused PW.1 - Exs.P.1 to DW.1 -
1. 1417/2015 16149/2012 Ex.D.1 Gayathridevi C. P.5 D.B.Jatti 9467/2012 PW.1 - Prasanna Exs.P.1 to DW.1 -
2. 1418/2015 Ex.D.1 Kumar C P.7 D.B.Jatti Exs.P.1 to DW.1 -
3. 1419/2015 9470/2012 PW.1 - Anitha R Ex.D.1 P.5 D.B.Jatti PW.1- Exs.P.1 to DW.1 -
4. 1421/2015 16150/2012 Ex.D.1 Narayanaswamy M P.5 D.B.Jatti PW.1 - Prasanna Exs.P.1 to DW.1 -
5. 1422/2015 9469/2012 Ex.D.1 Kumar C P.6 D.B.Jatti amount, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be paid to 12 the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.,
2. In C.C.No.9467/2012:
The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.7,85,000/- and in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.7,70,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.,
3. In C.C.No.9470/2012:
The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,00,000/- and in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.,
4. In C.C.No.16150/2012:
The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,20,000/- and in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three 13 months and further out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.,
5. In C.C.No.9469/2012 :
The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,00,000/- and in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.,
11. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred appeals before the Appellate Court as mentioned above. After hearing the parties, the appeals preferred by the accused came to be rejected by the appellate Court. Against which, accused/petitioner is before this Court in these revision petitions.14
12. The contentions of the accused are that no cheques were issued to the complainants and there was no transaction between the complainants and accused. Further, he averred that he has not aware of the complainants and there was no notice and the complainants had not paid any amount. The other contentions came to be taken up by the accused are that the complainants had no capacity to muster the cheque amounts and the deposit or lent to the accused. There were no legally recoverable debts. The complainants have made a false claim. The complainants do not whisper about the source of income that enabled each of the complainants to make deposit with the accused. At the same time there is no document to show that either of the complainants have maintained the account or have 15 shown about the lending the money in the income tax returns filed by them.
13. The further contention of the accused in all the cases has been that no transaction has taken place between the complainants and the accused. The learned counsel for petitioner/accused submitted that father of the complainant in Crl.R.P.No.1417/2015 is one Chinnappa. Said Chinnappa had some transaction with the accused. But the question of issuing the cheques as claimed by the complainant did not arise and there was no pre-existing debt in the circumstances.
14. The point which the learned counsel for petitioner/accused wanted to drive is, the said Chinnappa, father of the complainant has mis used the signature and distributed them among his family 16 members including his daughter, daughter-in-law, son and to pile up criminal cases against the accused when there was no legally recoverable debt.
15. In this connection, learned counsel for the complainants/ Respondents Mr. Pramod would submit that the accused is the proprietor of M/s Jatti Automobiles, M/s Jatti Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Jatti Motors, M/s Jatti Ranch, M/s. Jatti Project Inc., M/sJatti Foundation etc.
16. Regard being had to the fact that it was the accused who borrowed money from the complainants and insofar as his status is concerned, he claims to be connected with the said concerns.
17. It is also the case of the complainant in all the cases that the total amount that was deposited from all the members of the family of the 17 complainants consisting of complainant in each of the cases comes upto Rs.36,50,000/- during the period from 2005 to 2008. The accused person used to issue cheques towards the payment of interest as well. The cash receipts in this connection are stated to be at Exs.P9 to P14 marked in C.C.NO.9468/2012 (which is not in the present series of cases) are evident for the same.
18. Insofar as Crl.RP No.1417/2013 connected to Crl.A.No.287/2014 connected to CC No.16149/2012 is concerned, the amount of deposit was Rs.3.00 lakh under receipt Ex.P9 dated 27.10.2005 marked in CC No.9468/2012 the cheque is issued in favour of complainant. The original of Ex.D1 is nothing but Xerox copy of Ex.P1. The question arises that the intention of the parties was to exclude Gayathridevi, the complainant in Crl.RP 1417/2015. The very 18 mentioning of the name of Gayathridevi makes the difference thereby telling that the cheque was issued in her name.
19. During cross examination of PW1, a question was posed to the witnesses by the learned counsel for DW1 who is the accused in respect of the Income Tax Returns filed and also as to whether the amount of cheque in Crl.R.P.No.1417/2015 connected to Crl.A.No.287/2015 connected to CC No.16149/2012 the filing of income tax returns is out of mind. Further a document came to be confronted by the learned counsel for accused which is nothing but the Xerox copy of the cheque which was already marked as Ex.P1 through the complainant.
20. It is necessary to place on record that the copy of the cheque Ex.D1 was confronted by the 19 counsel for accused to the complainant and the latter accepts and admits it which goes to show that the accused is having a direct knowledge of existence of the cheque for Rs.3.00 lakhs on the basis of which the complainant has filed the case. It is not a case wherein the accused person is seeking cancellation or declaration of nullity of the instrument Ex.D1. On the other hand, it is during cross examination by way of suggestion from his custody accused has confronted the said document which in fact contains the signature of the accused and the said document is claimed by the complainant to have been issued as a security for the repayment of the loan borrowed.
21. The facts are similar in other cases, but the cheque amounts and numbers are different which is clearly mentioned in the above table. 20
22. Insofar as tone and tenor of transaction, evidence and documents disclose the accused is stated to have paid the interest amount upto 2009 which goes upto Rs.18,41,118/- is to be read by directing the total amount claimed to have been deposited by the entire family members of the complainant in different denominations.
23. The payment of Rs.18,41,118/- should have certain meaning and set of facts for logical conclusion.
Thus, Ex.D1 produced by the accused in Crl.R.P.No.1417/2015 connected to Crl.A.No.287/ 2015 connected to CC No.16149/2012 would go contradictory and they are nothing but mutually destructive contention.
24. The document, more particularly, the principal document, cheque set at rest the contention 21 of the accused that he is not aware about the complainant as the cheques are issued in favour of the respective complainants. Having analyzed the said fact, the court may consider the judicial note of the connection between the accused and the various concerns which are in the name of the accused more fully stated above.
25. Insofar as accused is concerned, he claims as proprietor of M/s Jatti Automobiles, M/s Jatti Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Jatti Motors, M/s Jatti Ranch, M/s. Jatti Project Inc., M/sJatti Foundation etc. Jatti.
26. For further clarification, it is necessary to extract paras 10,11,12,13 and 14 of the judgment passed by the trial court which are as under:
"10. The admitted facts in this case are that, the accused is the businessman and the 22 proprietor of M/s.Jatti Automobiles, M/s.Jatti Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., M/s.Jatti Motors, M/s.Jatti Ranch, M/s.Jatti Project Inc., M/s.Jatti Foundation etc. As per the letter of the accused Ex.D.3 dated 15.7.2009 with it's annexure Ex.P.8 marked in C.C.No.9468/2012 and the cross-examination of DW.1 herein, the complainant, her father S.Chinnappa, her brother C.Prasanna Kumar and his wife R.Anitha, her husband M.Narayanaswamy and others have deposited a total sum of Rs.36,50,000/- with the accused during the period from 2005 to 2008. It is also not in dispute that, the accused has issued number of cheques and receipts to the complainant and her family members on such deposits for security. The cash receipts Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.14 marked in C.C.No.9468/2012 are evident for it. The accused has paid total interest of Rs.18,41,118/- till the end of January 2009 to the complainant and her family members on such deposits as could be seen in the letter Ex.D.3 dated 15.7.2009 marked in C.C.No.9468/2012.
11. In the case on hand, PW.1 claims to have deposited Rs.3,00,000/- in question with the accused under the receipt Ex.P.9 dated
27.10.2005 marked in C.C.No.9468/2012 on the alleged assurance of the accused to pay interest at 18.33% p.a. Here, admittedly there was no written agreement with regard to the payment of interest. But the payment of Rs.18,41,118/- as interest by the accused as referred above to the complainant and her family members is a substantial piece of 23 evidence to believe the contention of PW.1 with regard to the interest. Therefore, there are no reasons to believe the denial of the accused with regard to the payment of interest and assurance therefore as asserted by the complainant.
12. The accused has took a defence that, the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in question was deposited by the father of the complainant S.Chinnappa and there was no transaction of any kind with the complainant. No doubt, PW.1 in the cross-examination has admitted the deposit of the amount by her father with the accused. But her contention that, this amount was deposited by her father towards her share out of the compensation paid by BDA cannot be ruled out. Because, admittedly the receipt Ex.P.9 dated 27.10.2005 marked in C.C.No.9468/2012 was issued by the accused in the name of the complainant. DW.1 has not explained the necessity of issuing the receipt in the name of the complainant if really the amount in question is not belonging to PW.1. Therefore, I find no reason in the contention of the accused on this count, but to hold that, it is the amount, which was deposited by the complainant herein through her father.
13. PW.1 asserts the failure of the accused to pay interest after January 2009 on the deposited amount and issuance of the cheque Ex.P.1 for Rs.3,00,000/- on demand for return of the principal amount in question in the year 2011.' Here, it is expedient to indicate that, as the instant case filed by the 24 complainant, here family members i.e., her father, her brother, his wife and the husband of the complainant respectively have filed similar cases against the accused on the file of this Court (all cases are reserved for judgment) as hereunder:
S.Chinnapp C.C.No.9468/12 & Rs.2,50,000/- & a C.C.No.9471/12 Rs.3,00,000/-
C.Prasanna C.C.No.9467/12 Rs.5,00,000/- Kumar C.C.No.9469/12 Rs.2,50,000/- R.Anitha C.C.No.9470/12 Rs.2,50,000/- M.Narayan C.C.No.16150/12 Rs.3,00,000/- aswamy
14. PW.1 states that, the amount of Rs.36,50,000/- was deposited by her and family members with the accused out of the compensation paid by BDA in relation to the acquisition of their land. This is not in specific dispute. The receipt of deposits by the accused without questioning the source is quite evident. Therefore, DW.1 has no reason to question the source and capacity of the complainant. In view of the above admitted facts and in the light of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, the defence raised by DW.1 as if the amount in question is unaccounted and undisclosed etc., does not survive for consideration. The accused has relied on the following authorities in support of his defence. (2014) Supreme (SC) 53053 - Ramdas Vs Krishnanand.
Held - the complaiant being an employee of the accused having annual savings of 25 Rs.10,000/- claiming to have given loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused failed to explain the source of fund - Claim not sustainable. 2009 Cri.L.J. 3777(Bombay) - Sanjay Mishra Vs Ms.Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki and another.
Held - Sec.138 and 139 of N.I.Act -
Cheque dishonoured - the complainant failed to disclose huge amount allegedly advanced in the I.T. return or books of accounts is sufficient to rebut the presumption. Also referred 1998 Cri.L.J.906 (AP) - A.Bhoosanrao Vs Purushothamdas Pantani and another. Based on the above observations and admitted facts, the principles in the aforesaid authorities relied on by the accused cannot be made applicable to the present facts of the case."
27. Before the trial court, accused relied on the decision reported in 2009 Crl.L.J.3777 (Bombay) - Sanjay Mishra Vs. Ms. Kanisha Kapoor @ Nikki and another, wherein it was held in respect of Section 138 and 139 of N.I. Act that when the 26 complainant failed to disclose the huge amount allegedly advanced in the I.T. Return or books of accounts is sufficient to rebute the presumption.
28. It is necessary to mention in this case accused also had an opportunity of mentioning his returns. Further, the non disclosure of income in the form of interest, if any and if there is evasion of income by the concern, society, even the complainant is liable for consequences under the separate statute governing the same, may be Income Tax Act.
29. The accused has also had a platform to explain which of the stands taken by him has relied upon to counter the claim of the complainant, as no transaction happened or no amount paid, none issuance of cheque on the one side and transaction being happened between the accused and the father 27 of the complainant Mr. Chinnappa on the other. But they are neither utilized nor is the case that no opportunity was provided.
30. Before the trial court, the accused has also relied on the decision reported in 1998 Crl.L.J. 906 (AP) - A Bhoosanrao Vs. Purushothamadas Pantani and another.
31. The relationship between the complainant- Gayathridevi and her father is that of a personal one. Even assuming that the transaction according to the accused or a business correspondence happened between him and the father of the complainant and he is not seen the complainant, it is necessary to find that the father of the complainant-Gayathridevi was available to have been examined on behalf of the accused or else there is no material or document to 28 show that father of the complainant has any grievance with accused. This has not been established by the accused as it amounted to a separate plea apart from denial of the assertion made by the complainant.
32. It has also come up in the evidence that there was certain acquisition of immoveable property and the compensation is being disbursed in respect of the property owned by the family of the complainant and that came to be shared. With all these above, if the complainant has collected the amount as it is established and if it is semblance of deposit he also stood in position to answer for the deposits collected by him.
33. In the totality of the circumstances, the ingredients that are required to complete the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act would be the existence of 29 liability in the form of legally recoverable debt in favour of the complainant by the accused, and the instrument/cheque drawn on a bank in favour of the complainant and the dishonour of the said cheque on presentation and compliance of formalities as contemplated. When once the ingredients are fulfilled, the complainant is entitled for presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act. Sections 138 and 142 of N.I. Act intend to punish only those who knowing fully well that they have no amount in the bank and yet issue a cheque in discharge of the debt or liability.
34. It is necessary to mention, return of cheques by the bank in each of the case is with the following endorsement.
30
Sl. Crl.R.P. Crl.A. No. C.C.No. Dishonoured
Cheque No.
No. No. on and reason
1. 1417/2015 287/2015 16149/2012 17.11.2011
Opening
538889 balance
insufficient
2. 1418/2015 289/2015 9467/2012 17.11.2011
funds
157410
insufficient
17.11.2011
Opening
3. 1419/2015 291/2015 9470/2012 022844 balance
insufficient
18.11.2011
Opening
4. 1421/2015 288/2015 16150/2012 075790 balance
insufficient
17.11.2011
Opening
5. 1422/2015 290/2015 9469/2012 538890 balance
insufficient
35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clarify that whenever a cheque is dishonored on the ground of account closed or other reasons, the result would be the complainant is not going to get the amount of the cheque. Even when the cheque is returned as 31 account closed, it comes within the domain of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. In other words, it is not only in case of 'insufficient funds' when once the intention of the accused in not maintaining the account or maintaining sufficient balance is nothing but a calculated approach to deprive the lender of repayment and as such, dishonor of a cheque on the ground of 'account closed' 'no opening balance' and the related would complete the offence.
36. In totality of the circumstances, I find that there is no irregularity or illegality or lapses whether material or incidental in the judgment passed by the learned trial judge or the appellate judge. Thus, there are no circumstances or reasons to interfere with the impugned judgments in all the cases. The revision petitions are devoid of ground and there are no valid 32 reasons to continue the proceedings. Accordingly, they are rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ/tsn*