Karnataka High Court
Sri Sanjay Paul vs Sri M Rajashekaran on 19 November, 2020
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.609 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. SANJAY PAUL
S/O LATE JAYAVEERA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/A. NO.13, 36TH 'A' CROSS
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560041
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRINIWAS M. KULKARNI, ADV.)
AND:
SRI. M. RAJASHEKARAN
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
R/A. NO.324, 7TH MAIN
3RD CROSS, VIVEKNAGAR
BENGALURU - 560017
.....RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
SENTENCE DATED 03.06.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.
19606/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU AND
-2-
CONFIRMED IN CRL.A.NO.901/2017 VIDE JUDGMENT
DATED 25.06.2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LXIX ADDL. CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND DISMISS
THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT/
RESPONDENT.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. challenging the concurrent judgments rendered by the courts below holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The respondent (complainant) initiated action against the petitioner/accused alleging that the accused was dealing in real estate business and he was also a developer; he being in need of funds for development of a layout at Sanjaynagar, took financial assistance of Rs.12,00,000/- from the complainant and in repayment -3- thereof, issued the cheque in question which was dishonoured for 'insufficient funds'.
4. The accused in his reply notice took up a defence of total denial and did not put forth any specific defence. However, during trial, the petitioner/accused entered into the witness box and deposed that he came to know the complainant through one Nandakumar. The said Nandakumar introduced the accused to the complainant and requested him to set right the dispute in the BDA site of one Gowtham, the brother-in-law of the complainant and after discussion, the petitioner/accused agreed to attend to the work and informed the complainant that he would incur an expense of Rs.2,00,000/- for which the complainant agreed and in order to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner/accused, demanded security and accordingly the petitioner/accused executed an 'On Demand Promissory Note' and a blank cheque in favour of the -4- complainant and the same has been misused by the complainant to lay a false claim against the petitioner/accused. Both the courts have held that this defence has not been substantiated or probabilised by the petitioner/accused.
5. As rightly observed by the courts below, neither the brother-in-law of the complainant nor the friend of petitioner/accused at whose instance petitioner is alleged to have attended to the work of the brother-in- law of the complainant, have been examined. More importantly, this defence was not set up in the reply notice issued by the petitioner at the earliest instance making it evident it is only an afterthought and an attempt to wriggle out of the liability arising out of the dishonour of the cheque. The records indicate that the petitioner has changed his stand during the trial and has taken up an alternative defence which is discussed by the Appellate Court in para-17 of the impugned -5- judgment. This itself goes to show that the defence set up by the petitioner is not only inconsistent, but is also bereft of any truth. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner/accused having failed to rebut the evidence adduced by the complainant/respondent, no fault could be found with the impugned judgment. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and have failed to take into consideration the inconsistencies appearing in the evidence, cannot be a ground to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
6. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of AMIT KAPOOR VS. RAMESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER1, while discussing the scope of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. in para 12 has held as under:
1
(2012) 9 SCC 460 -6- "12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-
founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the fact of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits." -7-
7. Petitioner/accused having failed to make out any jurisdictional error or patent infirmity in the impugned order, I do not find any reason to admit the petition. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
8. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending I.As. do not survive for consideration and are accordingly dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE RD