Karnataka High Court
Sri K Subramani vs Sri B Devaraja on 26 September, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
Crl RP 1351/2010
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.1351/2010
BETWEEN:
Sri K.Subramani,
S/o C.R.Keshavan,
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at No.873,
2nd Stage, Modi Hospital
Road, Bangalore-560 086.
Petitioner
(By Sri N.Srinivas, Adv.)
AND:
Sri B. Devaraja,
S/o Boregowda,
Aged about 55 years,
Residing at No.51,
5th Cross, Karnataka
Layout, Kurubarahally,
Bangalore-560 086.
Respondent
(By Sri M.K.Venkatramana, 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 25.10.2010
passed by P.O. F.T.C.-IX, Bangalore, in
Crl.A.No.340/2010 and further the order dated
29.03.2010 passed by the XIII ACMM, Bangalore in
C.C.No.32707/2005.
Crl RP 1351/2010
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. Heard Sri N. Srinivas, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M.K.Venkatramana, the learned counsel for respondent.
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 accused has not disputed that dishonoured cheque belonged to the account held by him with Crl RP 1351/2010 3 Janatha Co-operative Bank, West of Chord Road Branch Branch, Bangalore. The accused has also not disputed his signature on the cheque. The accused has sought to establish that there were transactions between accused and the son-in-law of complainant. In other words, the son-in-law of complainant had taken blank signed cheque from the accused. The cheque was given as security to discharge loan. The son-in-law of the complainant did not return the cheque, on the other hand the cheque was misused to lodge the instant complaint. The accused has also contended that cheque was not drawn on the date shown on the instrument.
5. On the application filed by accused, disputed cheque was sent to hand writing expert to know the age of signature and contents of the cheque. The hand writing expert expressed his opinion that it is not possible to determine the age of signature found on the cheque or the contents thereof.
Crl RP 1351/20104
6. The accused has been working as a lecturer. He is not an uneducated person. In the circumstances, it looks improbable that he would issue signed blank cheque for securing loan. The accused was aware of the consequences of issuing blank signed cheque. The accused has also executed a promissory note in favour of complainant. There is no satisfactory explanation to disprove the contents of promissory note.
7. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence of complainant and accused, has come to the conclusion that the evidence of complainant is consistent and credible. The accused has not adduced evidence to rebut the presumption available under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.
8. The accused has also contended that there was no proper service of notice. The learned Trial Judge considering the postal acknowledge, has held that there was service of notice on accused. The trial Court on Crl RP 1351/2010 5 proper appreciation of evidence has negatived the contentions raised by accused.
9. The learned Judge of the first Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, has confirmed the findings of the Trial Court.
10. On reconsideration of the matter, I do not find reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The petition is dismissed.
11. In view of dismissal of petition, application filed by the learned counsel for petitioner for production of additional documents does not survive for consideration. I.A.No.1/2013 is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm