Karnataka High Court
Venkatakrishnaiah D S S/O ... vs Yelahanka Merchants Finance Pvt Ltd on 26 September, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
Crl RP 1438/2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1438/2010
BETWEEN:
Venkatakrishnaiah.D.S.
S/o Seetharamaiah D.N.
Age: 54 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o No.66, 3rd Main Road,
R.T.Nagar, MLA Layout,
Bangalore-560 032.
Petitioner
(By Sri Chethan B. Angadi, Adv.
for Sri C.H.Jadha, Senior Counsel)
AND:
Yelahanka Merchants Finance
Pvt. Ltd., by pass P.B.Road,
Yelahanka, Bangalore-64.
Represented by its Manager
Smt. Girija, W/o Garudappa & GPA Holder.
Respondent
(By Sri M. Subramani, Adv.)
This criminal revision petition is filed under
Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
praying to set-aside the judgment dated 01.10.2010
passed by P.O. City Fast Track (Sessions Judge),
Bangalore in Crl.A.No.1427/2007 and also judgment
dated 31.10.2007 passed by 19th ACMM, Bangalore in
C.C.No.16727/2005.
Crl RP 1438/2010
2
This petition coming on for Admission this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
There are concurrent findings of the Courts below that petitioner (accused) has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. I have heard Sri Chethan B. the learned counsel for petitioner (accused) and Sri M. Subramani, the learned counsel for respondent (complainant).
3. The law is fairly well settled that this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction, does not sit as a Court of Second Appeal. This Court can interfere with the impugned judgment if it is demonstrated that the Courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner.
4. The complainant/Yelahanka Merchants Finance Pvt. Ltd., initiated complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Crl RP 1438/2010 3 Act inter alia contending that petitioner had borrowed Rs.50,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The petitioner did not repay the loan or interest. On the other hand he issued a cheque for Rs.66,050/- drawn on Amanath Co- operative Bank, Gangenahalli Branch, Bangalore, which on presentation was dishonoured.
5. The defence of petitioner accused before the Trial Court was that he had issued blank signed cheque as security for the loan raised with complainant Society and the same has been misused.
6. The complainant is a registered Society which had no reasons to receive blank signed cheque to recover the loans. This is one of the defences which we often come across. The petitioner having contended that he had issued a blank signed cheque has failed to substantiate the same. The existence of debt is not disputed by petitioner. Therefore, evidence adduced by petitioner is hardly sufficient to rebut the presumption available Crl RP 1438/2010 4 under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and have arrived at proper conclusions.
7. In the circumstances, there are no reasons to interfere with the judgments passed by the Courts below. The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm