CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Sri. Rajendra vs Smt. G.N. Shobha

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 19 March 2013 · Citation: (2013) 03 KAR CK 0073

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Sreedhar Rao, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 200 · Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) — Section 138
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Petition No. 992 of 2012
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 335 words

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—The respondent is the Complainant. It is the case of the Complainant that petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 80,000/- on 27.01.2009 bearing No. 132530 of State Bank of India, Jalahalli Branch, Bangalore towards discharge of loan given to him during July 2008. The cheque was presented on 27.01.2009, which was dishonoured. After issue of legal notice the Complainant has filed a private complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. Before trial court the Complainant examined herself and marked in evidence 6 documents. On behalf of the petitioner-accused no witness is examined and no documents are marked.

2.

It is the contention of the petitioner before the trial court that the blank signed cheque was issued towards loan amount due in a sum of Rs. 20,000/- only, however, the respondent fabricated the cheque mentioning the amount payable in cheque as Rs. 80,000/-, contrary to the terms of oral agreement and oral understanding between the parties. It is therefore, submitted that the cheque issued is not towards repayment of loan of Rs. 80,000/-. Therefore, sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.

The trial court rejected these contentions and convicted the accused for the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and directed him to pay fine of Rs. 90,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- is directed to pay as compensation to the respondent. On an appeal, the Appellate Court confirmed the order of conviction and fine imposed. Hence, this revision petition. The defence version that blank cheque signed by the petitioner has been delivered to the respondent. The said cheque is a inchoate instrument. Delivery of inchoate instrument perse is not illegal. Contention that respondent has manipulated the cheque for payment of Rs. 80,000/- contrary to the oral terms is not substantiated by any evidence. Petitioner has not even examined anybody before the trial court to substantiate his evidence. Only some suggestion is put during the cross examination of PW 1 and such suggestions are denied. The conviction and sentence is sound and proper. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.