SRIDHAR NARAYAN Vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these petitions filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 Cr. P. C. , the legality and correctness of the common judgment dated 14. 2. 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast track Court-Ill and Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Criminal appeal Nos. 95, 96, 102 and 103 of 2005 dismissing those appeals filed by the petitioners herein and affirming the identical but separate judgment dated 1. 6. 2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-IV Court, belgaum in CC Nos. 754/02, 755/02, 98/03 and 284/03 convicting the petitioners herein who were arrayed as accused, for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act (for short the "act") and sentencing them to pay compensation to the common respondent - complainant and to pay fine, is questioned. As common questions of fact and law arises for consideration, these petitions were heard and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE common petitioner in Crl. R. P. Nos. 659/06 and 661/06 viz. , saraswathi Narayan Hegde was arrayed as accused No. 1 in C. C. Nos. 284/2003 and 755/02, respectively. The common petitioner in Crl. R. P. Nos. 658/06 and 660/06 viz. , Sridhar Narayan Hegde was arrayed as accused No. l in C. C. Nos. 98/03 and in C. C. No. 754/02 respectively: In c. C. No. 98/2003 one Aishwarya Services represented by its Proprietor ramachandra Narayan Hegde and in C. C. No. 754/02, one Annopoorna agencies represented by its Proprietor Manjunath Narayan Hegde had been arrayed as accused No. 2. In C. C. No. 755/02 Manjunath Narayan hegde and in C. C. No. 284/2003 Annapoorna Agencies by its proprietor manjunath Narayan Hegde had been arrayed as accused No. 2. The tabular details as to the corresponding criminal appeals and C. C. numbers with reference to the criminal revision petitions filed before this Court are as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_283_KCCR1_2009Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) COMMON complainant viz. , Karnataka Bank Limited filed the above noted complaints against the respective accused persons under Section 200 of Cr. P. C. alleging offences punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. The common averments made in all the complaints are as under: accused No. l in each of these cases issued cheques in favour of accused no. 2 who in turn got those cheques discounted with the complainant Bank. Accordingly, the Bank after deducting the commission paid the balance amount covered under those cheques to accused 2 and thus the Bank became holder in due course of these cheques. When the complainant Bank presented theses cheques, they were returned unpaid with Bankers endorsement "insufficient funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque" viz. , accused No. l. Subsequently, once again the cheques were represented for encashment. But even then all the cheques were dishonoured as there was no sufficient funds to honour the cheques in the accounts of accused no. l. The fact of dishonour of the cheques were brought to the notice of accused No. l and 2 through legal notices and they were called upon to pay the amounts paid under the cheques. However, though notices were served on them, they failed to comply with the demands made therein within the statutory period. Therefore, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.