Sri. Gurushankar Reddy vs Sri. C. Ramappa

Pardeep D. Waingankar, J.—This Criminal revision petition is filed u/s 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set-aside the order dated 5.1.2011 passed in Crl. A. No. 331/2010 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-VI, Bangalore and the order dated 7.4.2010 passed by XIII ACMM, Bangalore in C.C. No. 1506/2008.

I have heard both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

The revision petitioner was the accused before XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C. No. 1506/2008 and the respondent was the complainant. The complainant and the accused are relatives. The accused is a coconut wholesale merchant. Since he was in need of funds for his business purpose, during the month of June 2006, he approached the complainant for financial help. Accordingly, the complainant, who is a retired employee of BEL advanced a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs as against Rs. 2,50,000/- from his retirement benefits to the accused. The accused sought for one year time to repay the loan amount. However, the accused agreed to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. Towards the repayment of loan amount the accused issued a post-dated cheque on 25.8.2007 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank. Though the accused had promised to repay the loan, he did not keep up his promise. But the accused assured that cheque issued by him will be honoured, if he presented for encashment. So the complainant presented the cheque on 22.10.2007 for collection, but, it was returned with an endorsement on 29.10.2007 that the funds in the account of the accused are ''insufficient''. So the complainant issued a legal notice dated 9.11.2007 informing the factum of dishonour of the cheque and called upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. Though the notice was served upon the accused, he neither gave reply to the notice nor arranged for the payment of the cheque amount, which made the complainant to file a complaint against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Accused appeared in response to the summons, but denied the charge levelled against him by the complainant. In order to prove the charge, the complainant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 27 documents as Exs-P1 to P27. On behalf of the accused, one D.H. Aswthkumar is examined as DW-1. Upon hearing the arguments and appreciation of the evidence placed on record, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty for having committed offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act and by judgment dated 7.4.2010 convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 2,05,000/-. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, accused preferred Crl. A. No. 331/2010 on the file of Fast Track Court-VI, Bangalore City. The Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-VI, Bangalore upon re-appreciation of the evidence has confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate by judgment dated 5.1.2011.

Questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by both the Courts below, this revision petition is filed.

Upon hearing arguments and perusal of the records, the point that arises for my determination is as under:-

Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Judge calls for my interference.

My finding is in the negative for the following;-

REASONS

The learned counsel for the petitioner accused has submitted before me that he had approached for financial assistance to his uncle one Gurumurthy Reddy to whom he had issued a cheque in question marked as Ex-PL He has also taken me through the cross-examination of the complainant, who is examined as PW-1, wherein he has admitted that the cheque was issued to Gurumurthy, but upon clarification by the learned Magistrate, the complainant has further deposed that it was issued by Gurushankar Reddy. Be that as it may, the name of the accused and the name of the uncle of the accused resemble each other. That is why, because of mistake at one point of time, the complainant deposed that the cheque was issued by Gurumurthy Reddy instead of Gurushankar Reddy the complainant. That has been made much by learned counsel for the petitioner though there is no substance in it. Moreover, on behalf of the complainant, necessary documents have been produced to show that the accused paid an amount of Rs. 35,000/- towards payment of interest as could be seen from receipt produced to that effect by the complainant. The complainant has also produced number of documents to show his financial capacity so as to advance the loan. The learned Magistrate upon oral and documentary evidence placed on record has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to pay an amount of Rs. 2,05,000/- as fine. The Sessions Judge has also upon re-appreciation of the evidence confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. The theory put forth by the accused that he issued the cheque to his uncle Gurumurthy Reddy is falsified in view of the production of documents for having paid interest to the complainant towards the loan obtained by the accused. Moreover, the accused did not step into the witness box to lead his evidence in order to establish his defence. Of-course, the accused can even cull out his defence from the evidence placed on record by the complainant himself. But accused failed to make out his defence either from leading his evidence or from the evidence placed on record by the complainant respondent. There is absolutely no defence for the accused. No grounds have been made out by the petitioner accused so as to interfere with the impugned orders. Revision petition is devoid of merit, hence, it is dismissed.