Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 20 (KAR)

G. T. Mahesh v. V. Narayana Reddy

2023-01-03

R.NATARAJ

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dtd. 1/7/2017 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani in C.C.No.465/2016 convicting him for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth referred to as ' N.I. Act ' for short) as well as the judgment dtd. 29/8/2020 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, sitting at Chintamani in Crl.A.No.59/2017. 2. The respondent herein filed a private complaint alleging an offence by the petitioner punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. The order sheet discloses that the presence of the petitioner was secured by the Trial Court by issuing non-bailable warrant and thereafter, he was released on bail in terms of the order dtd. 6/6/2017. On the said date, the Trial Court recorded the plea of the petitioner. In the plea, it was shown that the petitioner had admitted his guilt. However, in the order sheet, it was recorded that the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. He also filed an application under Sec. 145(2) of the N.I. Act. Thereafter, the case was listed on two dates for cross-examination of respondent but he was absent. On 24/6/2017, the petitioner and his counsel were absent and therefore, cross-examination of the respondent was taken as 'nil' and the Trial Court dispensed with the requirement of Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the arguments, it posted the case for judgment and convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. An appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected on the ground that the petitioner had pleaded guilty. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had not pleaded guilty since the order sheet dtd. 6/6/2017 clearly indicated that he pleaded not guilty and filed an application under Sec. 145(2) of the N.I. Act for cross-examination of respondent and the witnesses. He therefore, contends that the assumption of the Trial Court that the petitioner had admitted the guilt is ill-founded. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the plea as recorded would disclose that the petitioner had admitted the guilt and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in dispensing with the requirement of Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. 6. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the plea as recorded would disclose that the petitioner had admitted the guilt and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in dispensing with the requirement of Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. It is seen from the order sheet that the presence of the petitioner was secured by a non-bailable warrant. The petitioner was released on bail on 6/6/2017. On the same day, the Trial Court recorded the plea of the petitioner. The order sheet discloses that the petitioner did not plead guilty but claimed to be innocent and prayed that he be tried. He also filed an application under Sec. 145(2) of the N.I. Act. Curiously, the plea recorded by the Trial Court discloses that the petitioner had admitted the guilt. Therefore, there is no clarity whether the mistake was committed by the Court in recording the plea or by the party himself. If the petitioner had pleaded guilty then the Court ought to have taken further steps to convict the petitioner rather than posting the case for cross- examination of the respondent. Since the proceedings of the Trial Court are apparently not regular and has resulted in a wrongful conviction of the petitioner, the same cannot be deemed to be in accordance with the procedure established by law. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act deserves to be set aside. Consequently, the following order is passed. ORDER i) The revision petition is allowed. ii) The impugned judgment dtd. 1/7/2017 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani in C.C.No.465/2016 is set aside. Consequently, the impugned judgment dtd. 29/8/2020 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, sitting at Chintamani in Crl.A.No.59/2017 is also set aside. iii) The case is remitted back to the Trial Court for re- trial in accordance with law. iv) The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 16/1/2023. v) The Trial Court shall re-commence the proceedings from the stage of cross-examination of PW.1 and dispose off the same in accordance with law. vi) The petitioner is ordered to be released forthwith. iv) The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 16/1/2023. v) The Trial Court shall re-commence the proceedings from the stage of cross-examination of PW.1 and dispose off the same in accordance with law. vi) The petitioner is ordered to be released forthwith. The Registry is directed to communicate the operative portion of this order to the Jailer, Chintamani Sub-Jail to release the petitioner forthwith. In view of disposal of the revision petition, pending I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.