CRL.RP/937/2026 of SRI MAHESH SHEKAR DAS Vs MR MARUDHARA NIDHI LIMITED on 6 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

This revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.03.2025 passed in C.C.No.272/2023 and also against the judgment of confirmation dated 12.03.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.339/2025.

2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that accused had availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant company by executing necessary documents agreeing to repay the loan along with interest with installments of Rs.1,000/- per day. The accused was due in sum of Rs.70,000/- to the complainant company

HC-KAR

and towards the repayment, issued the subject matter of the cheque. The said cheque was dishonored for ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, notice was issued but accused did not comply with the same. Thus, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claims the trial.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, its Managing Director has been examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P20. The counsel for the accused confronted Ex.D1 to PW1. Thereafter, statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the accused was recorded. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances that appeared against him. Accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D2 to D5. The Trial Court taken note of the evidence available on record particularly documents which have been relied upon by the complainant and also the accused and convicted and sentenced the accused.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the accused before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having reassessed the material

HC-KAR

available on record taken note of repayment of Rs.41,020/- and not accepted the defence of accused. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that though contention was taken contrary that only availed the amount of Rs.50,000/- and repaid the amount, the same is not substantiated and only part payment was made. The Trial Court also while considering the defence in paragraph 14 taken note of the contention of accused that he availed the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and also repaid the amount and the said contention was denied by PW1. For having repaid the amount, Ex.P19 discloses payment of Rs.41,020/- and as on the date of issuance of the Cheque, the balance was Rs.70,000/- including the interest and that is the case of complainant. Having repaid the amount subsequent to the issuance of the Cheque, nothing is placed on record. Hence, Trial Court and Appellate Court taken note of the material available on record regarding the case of complainant and also the defence of DW1. Contra defence was taken by the accused as he admitted the availing

HC-KAR

loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and also the payment as per Ex.P19 and accused also contend that he has availed only Rs.50,000/- and the same was repaid. The same was considered by the Appellate Court i.e., ledger details, which clearly shows that accused has paid the amount of Rs.41,020/- and for remaining amount of Rs.66,000/-, he has issued the cheque to the tune of Rs.70,000/- inclusive of the interest. When such materials are taken note of by Trial Court and Appellate Court, I do not find any error on the part of both the Courts in considering the material on record and orders of both the Courts also not suffer from its legality and correctness and there is no miscarriage of justice while considering the material on record. Hence, there is no ground to entertain the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN