- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 811 OF 2021 (397(CR.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. BENKI CHIDANANDA, S/O BENKI THIPPESWAMY, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT #2353, SAMPIGE ROAD, J-BLOCK, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU - 570 023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. SHARASS CHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDYARANYAPURAM P S 2. K. RAGHU S/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT: NO.1875, AKBAR ROAD, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 007. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAM.A, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. RAJESWARI M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29.06.2021 IN CRL.A.NO.30/2020 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.01.2020 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSURU IN C.C.NO.8071/2016 AND BE PLEASED TO PASS THE ORDER OF - 2 - ACQUITTAL AND ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGE. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.03.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CAV ORDER In this petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C petitioner who is accused No.1 has challenged his conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 of IPC which came to be confirmed by the Sessions Court by dismissing the appeal filed by him. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. Respondent No.2 - Defacto complainant K Raghu filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, alleging that on 07.05.2012, accused No.1 borrowed hand loan of ₹20,000/- with a promise to repay the same within one month. He issued a cheque dated 07.06.2012 towards repayment of the same. When complainant present it for - 3 - encashment, it was returned with endorsement "there is no sufficient funds" in the account and that the signature in the cheque does not tally with the specimen signature of account holder. In this regard, complainant made several request to the accused No.1 to pay the amount. Ultimately, on 05.01.2016, when he went to the house of accused No.1 to make demand, all the accused persons abused him in filthy language and gave threat to him and accused No.1 said that with the intention of cheating him, he has issued the cheque belonging to his wife by affixing his signature and since the validity period of the cheque has elapsed, the complainant was left without remedy. He was also manhandled and removed from the house. Though he approached Vidyaranyapuram police station to file complaint but it was not accepted. Police Commissioner also failed to take action upon the complaint. Threfore, without any alternative, he is forced to file the private complaint. 4. The trial Court referred this complaint to the jurisdictional police for investigation. The concerned police - 4 - after conducting detailed investigation filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3. 5. Accused persons contested the case, by pleading not guilty to the charges framed by the trial Court. 6. In order to prove the allegations against accused, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs-1 to 7 and Exs.P1 to 14. 7. During the course of statement under Section 313, of Cr.P.C, accused have denied the incriminating evidence led by the prosecution. 8. On behalf of accused persons, accused No.2 is examined as DW1 and Ex.D1 is marked. 9. The trial Court the acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. It convicted accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC and sentenced him as detailed in the order. - 5 - 10. Aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 filed Criminal Appeal No.30/2020 before the Sessions Court. It came to be dismissed and thereby confirming the conviction and sentence of accused No.1. 11. Challenging both Judgments and orders of the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court, accused No.1 is before this Court contending that they are arbitrary, capricious and opposed to the principles of law. While considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has brushed aside, the inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions. The conviction of accused No.1 is against the weight of the evidence on record. The trial Court has relied upon the sole testimony of PW1 and drawn a conclusion that accused No.1 has fraudulently or dishonestly induced defacto complainant to pay him a sum of ₹20,000/- and thereby guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 467 and 471 of IPC. 12. Ex.P3 is addressed to State bank of India and as admitted by PW1 only cheque was returned to him. In Ex.P3 the cheque was returned for want of sufficient funds - 6 - and manual insertion is made as to the second reason for dishonour of cheque as ‘drawer signature differ’, with a different rubber stamp affixed recently. There is no dishonest inducement by accused No.1, and therefore the ingredients of Sections 420, 467 and 471 are not attracted. Though the trial Court rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove the incident dated 05.01.2016 and acquitted Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 406 of IPC, it committed grave error in holding that accused No.1 is guilty of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC. Exs.P8 to 10 are not admissible, since originals are not produced. The Courts below have erred in holding that accused failed to establish that the amount in question on which Ex.P2 cheque was drawn is a joint account. DW1 has produced ExD1-photo copy of the joint account opening form application to add the name of accused No.1 to the account to make it jointly operable. Viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment and order - 7 - of the trial Court and Sessions Court are not sustainable and hence the petition. 13. On the other hand, learned HCGP representing the State and learned counsel representing respondent No.2/De facto complainant supported the judgment and order impugned. They would submit that the account on which Ex.P2 cheque is drawn is the individual account standing in the name of accused No.2. In order to cheat the complainant, accused No.1 has issued the cheque drawn on the said account by a affixing his signature. When it was presented for encashment, it was returned dishonoured on the ground that there are no sufficient funds in the account as well as the signature of the drawer differ from the specimen signature. 14. On 05.01.2016, when complainant went to the house of accused persons, he was abused and manhandled by accused Nos. 1 to 3. Though the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court held that the incident dated 05.01.2016 is not proved, they have rightly come to the conclusion that accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable - 8 - under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC. At the trial, accused have taken a defence that the account in question was a joint account and as such accused No.1 was authorized to operate the same and therefore no offence is committed by accused No.1. However, accused No.1 has failed to prove that it was a joint account operable by accused Nos.1 and 2. The findings given by the court below are based on the evidence placed on record and there is no perversity. No justifiable grounds are made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of the court below and prayed to dismiss the petition also. 15. Heard arguments and produced the record. 16. The undisputed facts are that Ex.P2 cheque is drawn on account No.10662011000539. However, it is signed by accused No.1, affixing his signature. The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have consistently held that prosecution has proved that accused No.1 issued the cheque at Ex.P2 towards repayment of loan of ₹20,000/- received by him and on presentation it was dishonoured as the signature differ from the specimen - 9 - signature of the drawer and also for insufficient funds. ExP3 is the endorsement issued by drawer bank to the State Bank of Mysuru Mandi Mohalla through which complainant presented it for encashment. In turn, the State bank of Mysuru has issued the same to the complainant by affixing its seal. 17. So far as insertion of reason No.2 in hand writing that the drawers signature differ is concerned, it appears since usually cheques are dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, the bank is having the format with the said condition. When the cheque was also dishonoured on the ground, that drawers signature differ, the said reason is added in handwriting. PW3 Pankaj Kumar Jha is the Chief Manager of drawer bank. During the course of evidence, he has clearly deposed that ExP2 cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds as well as drawers signature differs. Except suggesting that he has not given any statement before the investigating officer, his evidence is not challenged by the accused. - 10 - 18. At the trial, the accused have tried to establish that the account on which Ex.P2 cheque is drawn is a joint account of accused Nos.1 and 2 and therefore accused No.1 was also authorized to sign it and accordingly he has issued the said cheque and as such, no offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC are committed by accused No.1. However, the evidence of PW3 Pankaj Kumar Jha clearly proved that the said account was opened in the individual name of accused No.2 on 07.06.2006 and cheque No.893641 (Ex.P2) was issued to the said account. He has produced the attested copies of account opening form, telephone bill, and PAN card at Ex.P8 to 10. ExP8 clearly state that it was an application filed by accused No.2 for opening an account in her individual name. As already noted, accused have not at all challenge the testimony of PW3. No suggestions are made to him that it was an account opened in the joint name of accused Nos.1 and 2 or that subsequently any requisition was given, to the bank to convert it a joint account. - 11 - 19. In order to prove that the account in question was a joint account of accused Nos.1 and 2, the accused have relied upon the testimony of DW-1 (accused No.2). She has deposed that she opened the account in question in her individual name during 2006. However, since her husband was working in the same Branch, they were directed to make it a joint account and therefore during March 2008, she gave an application to make it a joint account. However, accused have not produced any document prove that during 2008, the said account was converted into a joint account. The accused have relied upon, Ex.D1, which is a application given on 26.03.2019 to add the name of accused No.2 to the pension account of accused No.1. It has nothing to do with the account on which Ex.P2 cheque was drawn. Thus, the accused have failed to establish Account No.10662011000539 on which Ex.P2 cheque was drawn was a joint account of accused Nos.1 and 2, and that he was authorized to sign the same. Exs.P8 to 10 are the attested copies of account opening form given by the accused No.2, and the documents produced along with it in proof of her address which are - 12 - undisputed documents and in fact are not disputed during the cross examination of PW3. Such being the case it is not open to the accused to dispute the same in the present petition. 20. The trial Court as well as the Sessions Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record have rightly held that the allegations against accused No.1 proved for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC. The conclusions drawn and findings arrived at are consistent with the evidence placed on record. This Court finds no perversity in the same calling for interference. 21. In the result the petition fails and accordingly the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the accused No.1 under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C is dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 29.06.2021 in Crl.A.No.30/2020 - 13 - on the file of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru and order dated 20.01.2020 in C.C.No.8071/2016 on the file of I Addl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru are confirmed. (iii) The Registry is directed to send back trial Court and Sessions Court records along with copy of this order forthwith. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE ASN