Karnataka High Court
Smt. A Vani vs Mr J Cardoza on 21 October, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.849/2011
BETWEEN:
SMT. A. VANI
W/O V B PARAMESHWAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
NO.8/2/21, N.R.LAYOUT
RUPENA AGRAHARA, VIRATNAGAR
BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560068. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI BASAVARAJA PATEL G.K., ADV.)
AND:
MR. J.CARDOZA, MAJOR
R/A NO.1, SARAMA GARDEN
COOKSON ROAD, BANGALORE-560068. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN.C, ADV.)
THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397
R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED:04.06.2011 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE & PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III, MAYO
HALL UNIT, BANGALORE, IN CRL.A.NO.25168/10 & JUDGMENT
DATED:06.12.2010 PASSED BY XIV ACMM AT BANGALORE IN
C.C.NO.26626/2001 & ETC.
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') in C.C.No.26626/2004, on the file of XIV ACMM at Bangalore. Therefore, she was before the appellate court. The learned Judge of appellate court on re- appreciation of evidence has confirmed the findings recorded by trial court. The judgment of appellate court is challenged in this revision petition.
2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner.
3. There are concurrent findings of courts below that petitioner has committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Act.
4. This court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 401 Cr.P.C., does not sit as a court of second appeal. This court can interfere with the impugned judgment if the courts below have committed glaring errors in 3 appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner.
5. The petitioner has not disputed that cheque (Ex.P.1) was drawn on the account held by her and it was drawn in favour of respondent (complainant). The petitioner has not disputed her signature on the cheque. The petitioner has unsuccessfully contended that she had issued a blank signed cheque to respondent (complainant) as a security for loan borrowed from respondent (complainant). The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence of respondent (complainant) has held that complainant has proved necessary ingredients of section 138 of the Act. The petitioner (accused) has not adduced evidence to rebut presumption available under section 139 of the Act.
6. The petitioner was working as Data Entry Operator, Grade-III on contract basis in National Sample Survey Office, Data Processing Centre attached to Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, Government of India. The 4 petitioner is not an illiterate person to issue a blank signed cheque to discharge her liability. Therefore, the trial court has righty rejected the defence put forth by petitioner. The learned Judge of appellate court on re-appreciation of evidence has confirmed the findings of trial court.
7. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,50,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Act. The learned trial Judge has directed that out of fine amount, a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- shall be paid to respondent (complainant) as compensation and remaining amount shall be appropriated towards fine.
8. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with trial court towards payment of fine and compensation imposed by trial court. The learned counsel would submit that a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- was deposited on 26.07.2013, a sum of 5 Rs.70,000/- was deposited on 21.02.2011 and a sum of Rs.70,000/- and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was deposited on 30.01.2012.
9. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner was working as a Data Entry Operator, Grade-III on contract basis in National Sample Survey Office, Data Processing Centre attached to Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, Government of India and her services were terminated in view of conviction of petitioner for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Act.
10. In a decision reported in 1981 (Supp) SCC 17 (in the case of Aitha Chander Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh), the Supreme Court has held:-
"2. As the appellant has been released on probation, this may not affect his service career in view of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations."6
In the case on hand, offence for which accused is tried and convicted is not related to the office held by her. In other words, the offence is not committed in discharge of official duties of petitioner.
11. The petitioner has deposited fine amount imposed by trial court. In the circumstances, if the imprisonment is confirmed, it is likely to affect service conditions of petitioner. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where court has to extend benefit of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In the circumstances, judgment of trial court, confirmed by appellate court needs modification.
12. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER The revision petition is accepted in part. The petitioner is released under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 with due admonition. In terms of section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, petitioner (accused) is 7 directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- to respondent (complainant). The amount deposited by petitioner with the trial court shall be adjusted towards compensation in terms of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN