Karnataka High Court
Suresh S/O Govind Bhat, vs Dilip S/O Ramdas Naik, on 9 October, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.2466/2010
BETWEEN:
Suresh,
S/o Govind Bhat,
Aged 50 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Tourist Home Complex Main Road,
Karwar,
Uttara Kannada District. .. PETITIONER
(By Shri V.P.Kulkarni, Advocate)
AND:
Dilip,
S/o Ramdas Naik,
Aged 44 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Mahadev Nagar,
Nandangadda,
Karwar, Uttara Kannada. ...RESPODNENT
(By Shri.Praveen P Tarikar, Advocate)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 397 read with
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to set aside
the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Uttara
2
Kannada, Karwar in Crl.A.No.77/2008 dated 5.10.2010 confirming
the order of the JMFC II Court, Karwar in CC No.109/2006 dated
4.3.2008.
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made
the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner was the accused for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act', for brevity). It was claimed by the respondent herein that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.54,000/- and had executed a promissory note in respect of the same and when there was default in repayment, on repeated demands, the petitioner had issued a cheque for the said amount drawn on Syndicate Bank, Karwar dated 26.10.2005 bearing No.738397 for a sum of Rs.54,000/-.
However, when the same was presented for collection, it was returned dishonoured and therefore a demand having been made in 3 terms of Section 138, the petitioner having defaulted, a complaint was filed. The same was contested. It was the defence of the petitioner that there were business transactions between the petitioner and the respondent. It is during the course of such business transactions, on the pretext that the petitioner would be standing guarantor for a loan borrowed from the Land Development Bank, the petitioner had unwittingly affixed his signature to the promissory note as well as the cheque, which was sought to be misutilised by the respondent. That defence having been negated by the trial court, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and also directed to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.60,000/-. This having been challenged in appeal, the appellate court has affirmed the finding of the trial court. It is that which is sought to be questioned in the present petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel and on a close examination of the record, it is evident that the grounds alleged in the present petition are but a reflection of the defence sought to be 4 raised in the first instance and reiterated in the appeal. The findings of the court below being concurrent, there is hardly any scope for interference . However, there is one aspect of the matter which requires consideration, namely, that the trial court having imposed the punishment, has not only thought it fit to sentence the petitioner to imprisonment, for a substantial period of one year, but has also directed payment of fine in a sum of Rs.5,000/- as well as compensation in a sum of Rs.60,000/-. This is akin to punishment being imposed thrice over. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the offences alleged which is of a quasi-criminal nature and therefore, this court finds scope for interference on that ground.
Consequently, while affirming the judgment of conviction, the punishment imposed is substantially modified. The petitioner is convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.65,000/-, of which Rs.60,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the respondent and in default of which, the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for 5 six months. The amount shall be paid within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
With that observation, the petition stands partly allowed.
SD/-
JUDGE nv