Case Title: SRI KRISHNA S BHAT Vs. SRI G H ARUNKUMAR GADIKATTE
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 486 OF 2016
Dated on: 21st MAY, 2024
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
Facts:
In this case, Sri Krishna S Bhat, a retired government employee, borrowed Rs.1,25,000 from Sri G H Arunkumar Gadikatte, a licensed money lender, on January 29, 2001, with an agreement to repay by February 26, 2002, including interest at 18% per annum. To repay the loan, Bhat issued a cheque dated October 18, 2002. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite receiving a notice regarding the dishonor, Bhat did not repay the amount, leading to a legal complaint. The Trial Court convicted Bhat, sentencing him to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,50,000, with a compensation order of Rs.1,45,000 to the complainant. The Appellate Court confirmed this judgment. Bhat filed a revision petition, arguing the cheque was materially altered and contested liability. During the final hearing, Bhat presented a demand draft for the fine amount and requested a modification of the sentence due to his age and health. The HC accepted this request, replacing the imprisonment sentence with a fine payment, and instructed the Registry to facilitate the compensation payment to the complainant.
Issues framed by Court:
- Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated August 10, 2011, by the Trial Court, and its confirmation by the Appellate Court on March 15, 2016, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, were justified.
- Whether the cheque issued by the petitioner (Sri Krishna S Bhat) had been materially altered by the complainant (Sri G H Arunkumar Gadikatte), and if such an alteration would impact the liability of the petitioner to pay the amount specified in the cheque.
- Whether the sentence of one year of simple imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court was appropriate, or if it could be modified to a sentence of payment of fine, considering the petitioner’s age, health condition, and the fact that he had presented a demand draft for the fine amount.
Legal Provision:
Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881: Deals with the offence of dishonoring a cheque for insufficiency of funds and the punishment for it.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant contended that the cheque in question had been materially altered by the complainant, and therefore, he was not liable to pay the amount specified in the cheque. This argument formed the basis of his appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Court. He disputed the validity of the cheque, suggesting that the alterations made it unenforceable, and thereby challenged his liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Despite this contention, he ultimately sought to modify his sentence to a fine only, considering his age, health issues, and status as a retired government employee.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent, Sri G. H. Arunkumar Gadikatte, contended that the petitioner, Sri Krishna S. Bhat, had borrowed Rs. 1,25,000 and issued a cheque dated October 18, 2002, to repay this amount. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite receiving a notice regarding the dishonor of the cheque, the petitioner did not repay the amount, leading to the filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent maintained that the petitioner was liable for the amount as per the terms agreed upon and the issued cheque, which resulted in the initial conviction and the subsequent confirmation by the appellate court.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement:
The Court analyzed the revision petition by acknowledging the petitioner’s conviction for dishonoring a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as affirmed by both the Trial and Appellate Courts. The petitioner’s counsel submitted a Demand Draft for the fine amount, citing the petitioner’s age, health issues, and retirement status, and requested to replace the imprisonment sentence with a fine. The Court considered these factors and deemed it appropriate to modify the sentence. Thus, the Court allowed the revision petition in part, altering the one-year imprisonment sentence to a fine of Rs. 1,50,000, which is to be deposited within ten days. The Court directed the Registry to ensure the complainant receives Rs. 1,45,000 as compensation, with the remaining balance going to the State exchequer.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta
