Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 631 (KAR)

D. Rajkumar v. B. Jyothi Shetty

2010-05-24

ARALI NAGARAJ

body2010
Judgment : 1. The revision petitioner herein who was accused in C.C.No.34321 of 2002 on the file of learned XVI ACMM, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court’ for short) has challenged in this revision the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of conviction dated 20-10-2004 passed in the said case convicting him for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.1,50,000/-. He has also challenged in this revision the correctness of the judgment and order dated 17-11-2005 passed in Cri. Appeal No.1100 of 2004 by the learned Presiding Officer, FTC-IV, Bangalore City dismissing the said appeal and confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. 2. At the outset, Sri Krishna Das, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-accused submits that the revision petitioner-accused issued the cheque in question for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards discharge of the liability of the Bapuji House Building Co-operative Society as he was the President of the said Society and therefore sentence of fine of Rs.1,50,000/- imposed on him as against the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is very harsh and hence the same deserves to be reduced. 3. The first respondent herein who is the complainant before the Trial Court has not chosen to appear before this Court either in person or through his Counsel, despite receipt of notice of this revision petition. The second respondent herein is the said society. It is represented by Sri Mahesh Kiran Shetty, Advocate. Ms. Suchetha, the learned Advocate, representing her Senior Counsel Sri Mahesh Kiran Shetty submits that the second respondent has no objection if the amount of fine imposed on the revision petitioner-accused is reduced, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused. 4. On careful reading of the averments in the complaint, it could be seen that the accused issued the said cheque in his individual capacity toward discharge of the liability of the second respondent-society of which he was the President. 4. On careful reading of the averments in the complaint, it could be seen that the accused issued the said cheque in his individual capacity toward discharge of the liability of the second respondent-society of which he was the President. It is alleged by the complainant that this accused, being the President of the said Society, received from her about Rs.7,00,000/- promising that one site measuring 60’ x 40’ would be allotted to her, but the said society failed to allot the site and therefore the accused issued the said cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- toward discharge of the part of the liability of the Society. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the ends of justice would be met with if the fine imposed on the revision petitioner- accused is reduced from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/-. For the reasons aforesaid, the present revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner-accused, as recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court, for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, fine imposed on him is hereby reduced from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/-, the entire amount of which shall be paid to the first respondent-complainant as compensation. Further, three months time is granted to the revision petitioner-accused to deposit the said amount of fine of Rs.1,10,000/- with the Trial Court including the amount if any, already deposited by him pursuant to the judgment and order of conviction. No order as to costs.