1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.59 OF 2013 c/w CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.60/2013 In [CASE NUMBER] Between: Sri. [ENTITY] S/o Sri.[ENTITY] Age: 45 years No.748/B, Ramaiah Reddy Colony Section-A, Basavanagar Marathahalli Bangalore - 560 037 Petitioner (By Sri.[ENTITY], Advocate) And: Smt.[ENTITY] S/o Sri.[ENTITY] K.V. Aged about 39 years R/at Munivenkatappa Building Shankarappa Garden Opp: Tata Sherewood Apartments Basavanagar, Marthahalli Bangalore - 560 037 Respondent (By Sri.[ENTITY], Advocate) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] praying to set aside the judgment of conviction order dated 9.7.2012 passed by 2 the [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER] which came to be confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, FTC-III, Mayo Hall, Bangalore dated 19.12.2012 in [CASE NUMBER]. In [CASE NUMBER] Between: Sri. [ENTITY] S/o Sri.[ENTITY] Age: 45 years No.748/B, Ramaiah Reddy Colony Section-A, Basavanagar Marathahalli Bangalore - 560 037 Petitioner (By Sri.[ENTITY], Advocate) And: Sri.[ENTITY] K.V. S/o Sri.[ENTITY] Aged about 39 years R/at Munivenkatappa Building Shankarappa Garden Opp: Tata Sherewood Apartments Basavanagar, Marthahalli Bangalore - 560 037 Respondent (By Sri.[ENTITY], Advocate) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] praying to set aside the judgment of conviction order dated 9.7.2012 passed by the [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER] which came to be confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, FTC-III, Mayo Hall, Bangalore dated 19.12.2012 in [CASE NUMBER]. 3 These Petitions coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following:- ORDER
The petitioner (accused) in the above petitions is common. The respondent in [CASE NUMBER] is the husband of respondent in [CASE NUMBER].
2. There are concurrent findings of the courts below that petitioner has committed an offence punishable under [SECTION] of [ACT].
3. I have heard Sri.[ENTITY], learned counsel for accused and Sri.[ENTITY], learned counsel for complainants.
4. The trial court has accepted the evidence adduced by complainants that accused representing himself as the Trustee of St. Joseph's Leprosy Patients Society, which was situate in Church Street, Bangalore, borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from respondent in [CASE NUMBER] and a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from respondent in [CASE NUMBER]. In order to discharge the afore stated debts, the accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of respondent in [CASE NUMBER] and another cheque for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in favour of respondent in [CASE NUMBER]. The learned Judge of First Appellate Court on reappreciation of evidence has confirmed the judgment of trial court. The courts below have recorded concurrent findings.
5. The law is fairly well settled that this court while exercising revisional jurisdiction does not sit as a Second Appellate Court. This Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings unless it is demonstrated that courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law, resulting manifest injustice to accused.
6. The accused had made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that respondents had stolen blank signed cheque leaves from his office and misused the same to initiate these instant complaints. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that respondent in [CASE NUMBER] is a retired Ex-serviceman - [ENTITY] in Indian Army and respondent in [CASE NUMBER] has been working as Office Assistant in National Aeronautics Laboratory at Bangalore. The accused has not explained the circumstances, under which he had left the signed blank cheques in the office. Considering the status of the complainants, it looks improbable that they had stolen the cheques. The accused has not disputed that he has filed in the contents of the cheques and he had signed the cheques.
7. The learned counsel for accused would submit that apart from the cheque, the complainants had not taken any security from accused and first information filed by accused against complainants for stealing the cheques, is pending in HAL police station. The learned counsel for accused would rely on the decisions reported in [PRECEDENT] (in the case of [PRECEDENT] (in the case of [PRECEDENT]) and [PRECEDENT] (in the case of [PRECEDENT].).
8. In a decision reported in [PRECEDENT], this Court has held that under [SECTION] of [ACT], the Courts cannot a draw presumption unless existence of legally recoverable debt is proved. In a decision reported in [PRECEDENT], this Court had held that a presumption under [SECTION] of [ACT] is a rebuttal presumption. The accused can rebut presumption by adducing evidence and also by relying on evidence of complainant. In a decision reported in [CASE NUMBER], the High Court of Bombay has held that if huge amounts are paid without obtaining necessary documents and without giving proper details, they would create a suspicion in the evidence adduced by complainant.
9. The principles of law laid down in the afore stated decisions reported in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT], admit of no second opinion. In the decision reported in [CASE NUMBER], the court having regard to the facts and circumstances obtained therein has held that if huge amounts are lent, one would accept that lender would take appropriate security to ensure repayments of money.
In the case on hand, accused had drawn cheques as the Administrator of St.Joseph's Leprosy Patients Society, which has it's head office in Thiruvannamalai and accused herein has been in charge of the society at Bangalore to collect donations. Having regard to the nature of post held by accused, it looks probable that complainants had reasons to believe and trust him.
10. The defence put forth by accused that complainants had stolen blank signed cheques from his house and the first information lodged by him is pending with HAL police station since from the year 2009, looks ridiculous. For any reason, if HAL police had not taken any action on the first information lodged by accused, nothing had prevented the accused from filing a complaint under [SECTION] [ACT] The accused has failed to rebut the presumption available in favour of complainants.
The courts below on proper appreciation of evidence have recorded concurrent findings on the guilt of accused for an offence punishable under [SECTION] of [ACT]. The courts below have not committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence. There is no erroneous application of law by the courts below resulting in manifest injustice to accused. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgments. The petitions are dismissed.
JUDGE [ENTITY]