High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 01 KAR CK 0209

SRI R.B.SUBRAMANI PROPRIETOR, M/S.PRASHANTHI AFFILIATES vs M/S.SUGAR DADDY

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 10 January 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
John Michael Cunha
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
639 of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 325 words
1.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner is absent. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent.

2.

The revision petition is preferred against the concurrent findings of the courts below holding the petitioner herein guilty of the offences punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.11,00,000/- within two months from the date of order, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Out of the fine amount, Rs.10,50,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant.

3.

The complainant initiated proceedings under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the specific averment that the accused/petitioner herein purchased bakery items on credit basis and in discharge of the balance amount, the accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.10,11,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Gavipuram Extension, Bengaluru and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same came to be dishonoured as "funds insufficient". Both the courts have recorded a finding that the complainant has complied with the statutory requirements prescribed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and have negatived the contention of the accused/petitioner that the cheque in question was issued by him to one William as security to the credit transaction. The accused has not examined the aforesaid William nor has he substantiated the defence by producing any manner of evidence in proof of his alleged credit transaction with the aforesaid William. The Trial Court has recorded a finding of fact which is based on the evidence produced before the court.

4.

In the memorandum of revision petition, the very same contentions are urged which are already rejected by the courts below by assigning proper reasons. I do not find any justifiable reason to differ with the reasoning assigned by the courts below. No error or infirmity is pointed out warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

Hence, the revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.