Karnataka High Court
Sri M P Dhananjaya vs Sri K G Mruthyanjaya on 2 November, 2017
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.806 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
Sri.M.P.Dhananjaya,
s/o.Sri Puttaswamy,
aged about 50 years,
r/a. No.825, 26th Cross,
4th Main, Vidyaranyapuram,
Mysuru -570008. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri B.R.Srinivasa Gowda, Adv.) ABSENT
AND:
Sri.K.G.Mruthyanjaya,
s/o.late Sri Gurabasappa,
aged about 73 years,
r/a.No551, 2nd Cross,
Ramachandra Agrahara,
Kille Mohalla,
Opposite JSS Hospital,
Mysuru -570004. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri Prasanna V.R., Adv.)
2
This Criminal Revision Petition u/s.397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C.,
praying to set aside the judgment and order in Crl.A.No.391/13
passed by the Prl. District & S.J., Mysuru, dated 9.5.14
dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and order
passed in C.C.No.3627/08 by the IV Addl. I Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) &
JMFC at Mysuru dt.21.11.13 and allow the above Criminal
Revision Petition in the interest of justice.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for hearing this
day, the court made the following:-
ORDER
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner and his counsel are absent. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.
2. This revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the courts below holding the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ("N.I. Act" for short). The petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6,25,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.6,20,000/- is ordered to be paid to the 3 complainant by way of compensation and a sum of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the Government.
3. The case of the complainant/respondent is that the accused/petitioner and the complainant/respondent are known to each other. The accused used to avail hand loan from the complainant. On 17.9.2007, at the request of the accused, the complainant lent a loan of Rs.6,00,000/-. In return thereof, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.096946 dated 18.09.2008 for Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank, Chamundipuram, Mysuru. The said cheque, when presented for encashment, came to be dishonoured with an endorsement "payment stopped by drawer". The complainant issued the notice dated 08.11.2008 to the accused through Certificate of Posting and registered post. Registered post having been returned with an endorsement "addressee always absent during delivery time", notice was deemed to be served on the accused/petitioner in respect of the demand. The accused having failed to pay the 4 cheque amount, the proceedings were initiated under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Both the courts below have held that the accused issued the cheque in question in discharge of the legal debt due and payable by him. The courts have also held that the notice of demand is deemed to have been served on the accused and consequently, found him guilty of the above offence. The accused set up a defence that he had borrowed only a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and out of which, he had repaid Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant. According to the accused, the cheque in question was issued as security for the transaction, and the complainant has misused the said cheque by laying a claim for Rs.6,00,000/-. Both the courts below have held that the defence set up by the accused is false. He has failed to substantiate the said defence with any evidence even with the standard of preponderance of probability. The accused has admitted in the course of trial that he issued the blank cheque to the complainant.
5
5. The complainant having established the transaction as well as the debt due by the accused, the courts below have recorded a finding holding the accused guilty of the above offence. Even on reconsideration of the material on record, I do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the courts below. The findings are based on legal evidence. The courts below have appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below on the question of legal debt due by the accused and the compliance of requirement of section 138 of N.I. Act do not call for any interference by this court. I do not find any substance in the grounds urged in the revision petition. The revision petition is devoid of merits and hence, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss.