SRI. SHVIAKUMAR S v. THE GRADUATES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
CRL.RP/1153/2025 · 2025-09-19
Anant Ramanath Hegde
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 41193 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 41193 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37734 CRL.RP No. 1153 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1153 OF 2025 BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. SHVIAKUMAR S, S/O SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT DODIBILU AMRUTHURU VILLAGE KACHINAKATTE SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 222. …PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANANTH PRASAD NADIG N.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.
PRASHANTH D., ADVOCATE) AND:
1.
THE GRADUATES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KUVEMPU ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY T.V. GOPALAKRISHNA S/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING OF 7TH CROSS ‘C’ BLOCK GOPLAGOWDA BADAVANE SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIVAMOGGA ON 13.03.2024 IN
Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37734 CRL.RP No. 1153 of 2025
C.C.NO.71/2020 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER SET ASIDE THE
ORDER IN CRL.A NO.46/2024 DATED 17.06.2025 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.
2. This petition is filed assailing the concurrent finding in a proceeding arising from the complaint filed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/- and out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be remitted to the State.
4. The appeal filed by the accused in Criminal Appeal No.46/2024 on the file of Sessions Judge, Shivamogga is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37734 CRL.RP No. 1153 of 2025
5. The complainant has filed the case on the premise that the petitioner-accused had availed a loan of Rs.73,000/- from the complainant-Society and when the loan amount was demanded along with interest on 07.11.2019, the accused issued a Cheque for R.1,10,000/- and the said Cheque was dishonoured. Thereafter, complaint is filed, as the accused did not repay the loan amount within 15 days from the date of issuance of the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
6. The complainant, to substantiate its claim has produced 11 documents along with promissory note, loan application, loan sanction letter and statement of account. The accused has not led any acceptable rebuttable evidence and the complainant has cross-examined the accused and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, has rightly concluded that the complainant has established the transaction and accused committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37734 CRL.RP No. 1153 of 2025
7. On appeal by the accused in Criminal Appeal No.46/2024, the Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, has concurred the finding of the Trial Court.
8.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has deposited 20% of the fine amount before the Trial Court, pursuant to the interim order granted by the Appellate Court. He would further submit that the transaction is not established and the evidence in the cross- examination of P.W.1 is not appreciated in proper perspective by the Trial Court. Thus, he would urge that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner.
9. In the alternative, he would also submit that assuming that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount, the Trial Court should have granted six months time to the accused-petitioner to pay the fine amount. He would also submit that the sentence of six months imposed, in the event of default in paying the fine amount is disproportionate to the quantum of amount involved in the case.
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37734 CRL.RP No. 1153 of 2025
10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.
11. It is noticed that the complainant is a Co-operative Society. The transaction alleged by the complainant is established from the loan application, loan sanction letter, promissory note and statement of account.
12. In addition to that, the complainant has also produced the Cheque issued by the petitioner. The petitioner- accused has not led any evidence in support of his defence.
13. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
14. However, it is noticed that the complainant has already deposited 20% of the fine amount and what is required to be paid is remaining 80%. Hence, the Court is of the view that the complainant be given three months time to pay the fine amount of Rs.80,000/- before the Trial Court. If such a payment is not made, the sentence of six months simple imprisonment shall revive.
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37734 CRL.RP No. 1153 of 2025
15. This Court is also conscious of the fact that this
order is passed without notice to the complainant. However, in case, the complainant is aggrieved by the order granting 3 months time to the petitioner, the complainant/respondent is at liberty to move this Court for modification of the order.
16. The amount in deposit shall be released in favour of the complainant.
17. Further steps, pursuant to the impugned order shall not be initiated against the petitioner and warrant shall not be issued against the petitioner for a period of three months from today. With these observations, the petition is disposed of.
SD/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE
ST List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10