='B;i1igal0:'L=L-. V56i')"{}79-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAK/«\ AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 1" day of Fei}ruary, 2010
THE HON'BIJ3.' MR JUSTICE HULUVAD1 G Ieg.12_:1?I;t+,';*;*..i;;r;-«f _
Criminal Revision Petition 2232 / 2()_06--».. V
Between.-
V Krishnoji Rue, 54 yrs
S/0 Venkata Rao
R/a # 108, 5"' Cross
LaksE1minarayanapL1ra
Srirampumm Post
Bangalore 560 021
{By Sri Y s Shiva:P1';1s21d.Adv.) H 'V
And:
B;1s:1varajL1, 37-Ay1'.s' '
S/oBalz1pp'.1 ' VV 4' M
R/z1Si1an!;uvcs11w;1rz:11':rg;1;'
(By :'i'CT?E_1'iin:1:§a}', Adv.)
Petitionczr
Respondent
Tffizg I{evv.iéi(V::i’;Pctition is fiicd under 8.397 :’/w 401 of the CLPC praying
” jv»-;L’3.._$éi~z’1Aside t}1z0.vi_:j:dg:’11t:11I and order.’ dated 14.9.2006 in C:.’l.A 72/2066 by the Fast
V ‘!7__afz1fifik CfdLi’1’t«.EV, Bamgalorc Rum} District and the order danzd 19.5.2006 in CC
_V 12g,x2.(‘;<)2"by11ae Addl. CINE, Bar1g,aE01'c.
This Revision Petition luwing been 1’r:swing:
xv
to
()RI)I£R
Rex-*i.~;ion is by the petitioiter / accused against the order p;isse(§’»hy the
Add}. CJM, Bangalore in CC 128/2()O2 convictittg the tlCCUSe’d.v’i70~IT’:11}?!UVffi§Vt;1C§§
pLlE]i.\’h2Ebl€ under S. 1 38 of the Negotiable Instauments Act and $’e,t1te:t_c’ittg hitn-to i
pay Rs.7.4().()()()/~ out of which Rs.7.3U,(}()Ctt~ Aiisiot11ci”ed -Ito hue’-1:t21id”it() the
complainztnt us contpensatt’ion and Rs.l0j,i()0(]/~ tt:.:_ fine tttnount ‘\-N’/’hi’Ch’£’)1′.d$l’V§:~{V
confirmed in appeal by the Past TI”.lCk”{:($.L’:’~1′[ IV, i3:;:ng:tlo;e Rut:-iii’ District,’
diSmtS.\’i:’1g the appeal.
On it private contpluint co-‘mpi:t’;nt;r1ti*’ on 29.3.?.()O1. after
taking cogniz;:t1ce’::.t1t5J reccijd’i:tg”the xwozjnEttatentent of the cotnplztintant, case
came to be t’e’gist’ered Li’-‘_;_{L1i.F1~S’t”.[vlié’£iCVC’llSf,:fi% for the offence pttatisétatble. under S. 138
of the Negotiable ‘1’;tst:”ua’ne:’a_ts }”:ctf~~-”
V_it5’§:$ aileged, theconlplatnztnt and the LICCLISC-d are ttiendqx’ and the taccusetl
V.hf.A1(i vbio’n:oweVt3i’}t)£tn”of__Rs.317(),{)()()/– from the complainant and httd issued ‘.1
cheque “(‘lt_i[€(i’i-:{;2.Vi.QO§ for the said amount toxvtaatls repa1yn1e.nt_. dmwn on
Citizen Co~o§3e1’;ttive Bank Ltd. Rujzijimtgar. When the cheque was presented
fey; p”~aym_ent, hit wt-‘:..x’ dishonotired with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. After
._i}_;sti’;:tg”legtal not.ice demanding ptayntent. on faiittare to make pztyinent, complaint
–4__¢;tmt: to he filed. The coittplttinzntt got ex;-tmiated himself :15 PW 1 and got
‘ ntarketi five documents. On belm1t’oft|’:e accused, he e.xata11i:te.t1 1’1iinse§i’;1nd the
Bélitli Manager and got marked three (l()CL£I’t’%C:]%’S. After recording statement
under S.3l3, CLPC. on such denial by the accused. trial tvas heldj l”,After
hearing the argtnne.nt’s on behalf of the parties, learned Magist:’a1te..haa.eonlviClt1’d
and Sentenced the as above. On appeal by the accused, the l’a_.st ‘Ti’a.r:E{ fitmtit. ‘
Bangalore confirnted the order of the trial c($tii”%’a11«rl tlismi~.’;set”igthe’appea’!.
Hence, this revision against the concurrent l-l11(llI1g,Qlll”_>t)[l1 the cottrts ttel(‘;«w.’ ‘
Heard the counsel i’epi’esentin§_j tlteV.pa’rt-Eels;
Learned counsel for the pe:’i’tione:r’ has .rel_iecE upon decision of the Apex
Court in the ease of ._iaracir<(Iicr._n I3l";u!:–'./a i;lr1ttatr'raya G flegde — (2008)
2 SCC (CI'i)l'vI66._Wht;1;t§"li!;"'l-la is licitlypltlt-at' 'S139 merely raises a presumption in
favour o t:' the ho lder of eliequethat tilie, said cheque has been issued for discharge
of any debt or other lia'bily_itlyand it he existence of legally enforceaiale debt is not
":t_ inatter oEI'p1*e;;t1m_ptir_m under 3139. In the said case, it is also observed that
the c-r)mp'l;zipnant'failed'to"produce any books of accounts or any other proof to
ishmv thaehe go' so.Vin'ueli money from bank and the courts below failed to notice
-« ‘that”o1fdinarily.i.;i terms of S.269–SS of the lncome Tax Act. any advance taken
bv it-vayr t)’l’_loaii of more than Rs.2().{l0(‘)/~ had to be made by an account” payee
M “eheqti_e7 only. The Apex Court has also observed that, it is on the prosecution to
~ .prove the case beyond reamnable doubt in so far as standard of proof required
ta 2”