CRL.RP/544/2021 of MR VISHWANATHA Vs MANGALA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD on 27 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant-Mangala Credit Co-operative Society against the present accused is that complainant in the complaint specifically contended that complainant is a Credit Co-operative Society having banking business and the accused was an employee of the complainant. It is also the specific case of the complainant that while accused was working as an employee in the complainant-bank along with others manipulated loan on different dates by pledging duplicate golden ornaments and also by creating forged records and cheated and committed fraud on the complainant with common intention. It is also contented that after committing fraud of the funds from the complainant,

HC-KAR

accused utilized the same for his benefit. After knowing about the said facts, the same was informed to the Head Office of the complainant. After enquiry, the accused admitted the guilt and gave ‘ѓĘ’―ļΓļĆ’јѓł’ through registered post to the Head Office of the complainant and also sent copy of the same to the complainant. It is also contented by the complainant that they have lodged the complaint before the Bantwal Police and during enquiry, accused has given statement before the Police in the presence of his advocate Smt. Shailaja and further issued two Cheques towards discharge of the amount due to the bank. The amount due to the complainant is Rs.2,79,786/-. It is also alleged that to pay the amount due to the complainant, accused issued two subject matter of Cheques for an amount of Rs.1,29,786/- and also for Rs.1,50,000/-. Both the Cheques were presented for encashment and endorsement dated 20.08.2023 that ‘no sufficient fund’. Notice was issued and the same was served on the accused and inspite of service of notice, he did not give any reply and when he did not comply with the demand, complaint was filed, cognizance was taken

HC-KAR

and accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claims the trial.

3. The complainant, in support of their case, examined four witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 and also got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P25. On the other hand, the accused examined himself as D.W.1, but not produced any documentary evidence.

4. The Trial Court, particularly taking note of the admission on the part of D.W.1 during the course of cross- examination, wherein he admits issuance of Cheques Exs.P1 and P2 that signatures belongs to him and the same is taken note of in paragraph No.14 and also taken note of evidence of D.W.1 in his cross-examination, wherein he clearly admits that Exs.P1 and P2, Cheques pertains to him and so also, admitted in the cross-examination regarding receipt of notice before filing instant complaint and no reply was given. Further, he admits that when the complaint was given against him, enquiry was conducted and though, he claims that he did not send any ‘ѓĘ’―ļΓļĆ’јѓł’ to the Head Office and also complainant, but he did not send the same to the Handwriting Expert denying his letter.

HC-KAR

The Trial Court also in paragraph Nos.19 and 20, taken note of the admissions on the part of D.W.1 with regard to the complaint given against him and also enquiry conducted and issuance of two Cheques was also taken note of. In paragraph No.20, the Trial Court also taken note that the accused worked with the complainant-Society for the period of 2 years and during the said period itself, misappropriation was made. All these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court and even the complainant also produced the proceedings initiated against the revision petitioner before the JRCS, Mysore and judgment was also passed against him in terms of Ex.P16. Hence, the accused was convicted and he was sentenced with default punishment.

5. The order of the Trial Court was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.01/2020. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence and admission on the part of D.W.1 and also the document produced by the complainant, wherein the accused admitted Cheques Exs.P1 and P2 and though D.W.1 says that he has not given Cheques at Exs.P1 and P2, but during the

HC-KAR

course of cross-examination, he admits the signatures and the same was taken note of by the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.25. In the cross-examination, D.W.1 also categorically admits that his signatures appear in Cheques Exs.P1 and P2 and taken note of theory of falsehood before the Trial Court at the time of cross-examining the witness and when the applications were filed before the First Appellate Court under Sections 311 and 391 of Cr.P.C., the First Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that such records are immaterial for the case to ascertain as to whether the accused has committed the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and when the Cheques are issued and admitted, presumption is against the accused and the same is taken note of in paragraph No.27 and confirmed the judgment of Trial Court and sentenced the accused.

6. Now, the contention of learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in invoking Section 138 of N.I. Act. The counsel would vehemently contend that presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act shall not be extended to prove

HC-KAR

the existence of legal liability and the same is a rebuttal presumption and accused has rebutted the same. The counsel would vehemently contend that when the applications are filed before the First Appellate Court under Sections 311 and 391 of Cr.P.C. and sought for records of various customers, who have received gold loan from the complainant-society, the First Appellate Court dismissed the same in coming to the conclusion that those records are immaterial to ascertain as to whether the accused has committed the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The very approach of the First Appellate Court and Trial Court is erroneous. Hence, it requires interference of this Court by exercising the revisional power.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that no dispute that this petitioner was working in the Society as an employee and he also categorically admits in the cross-examination that when the misappropriation was made, a case was registered against him and during the enquiry, he admitted his guilt. The counsel also would submit that when he admitted his guilt, he has sent letter to the Head Office and also the complainant-Society and

HC-KAR

having admitted his guilt, he has issued Cheques Exs.P1 and P2. The counsel also would submit that at one breath, he denies Exs.P1 and P2, but during the course of cross- examination, gone to the extent of denying his own signature in the vakalath and the very defence which was taken was falsified by his own admission in the cross-examination and the Trial Court taken has note of the same in paragraph Nos.19 and 20 and extracted his cross-examination. Hence, there is no error on the part of the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court rightly comes to the conclusion that when the applications are filed for summoning the documents in respect of other customers, the documents of other customers are not necessary to consider the case and the First Appellate Court has not committed any error.

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also the grounds which have been urged before this Court in the revision, the question that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

HC-KAR

1. Whether the judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness and whether this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction?

2. What order? Point No.1:

9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent, no dispute with regard to the case of complainant that this petitioner was working as an employee in the complainant- Society. It is the specific case of complainant-Society that amount was misappropriated by pledging duplicate gold ornaments and also by creating forged records and cheated and committed fraud on the complainant with a common intention. It is also important to note that during the enquiry when the complainant came to know that accused had indulged in such act, he had issued two Cheques and though he denied the very issuance of Cheques Exs.P1 and P2 in his evidence i.e., in his chief-evidence, but during the course of cross-examination, he categorically admitted the same which is extracted in paragraph No.14 of the judgment of the Trial Court. Even, he

HC-KAR

had gone to the extent of denying his own vakalath. But he also contend that he did not send any letter to the Head Office or to the complainant-Society by sending his ‘ѓĘ’―ļΓļĆ’ јѓł’. But, he did not dispute the same and also not sent the said document to the Handwriting Expert. Apart from that, when the notice was issued, the same was within his knowledge and if he did not issue any Cheques at Exs.P1 and P2 and also ‘ѓĘ’―ļΓļĆ’ јѓł’, he would have taken the said defence in the reply notice. But, no such reply was given and only during the course of cross- examination of P.W.1, afterthought, he disputed the Cheques, vakalath and also the letter and during the course of cross- examination of D.W.1, he admitted his guilt and also issuance of two Cheques Exs.P1 and P2. All these materials were taken note of when he was subjected to cross- examination and both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in detail dealt with the admission on the part of D.W.1. When such being the case, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in confirming the judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. When the order of both the Courts not suffers from its legality and correctness, question of

HC-KAR

exercising the revisional jurisdiction does not arise and the scope of revision is also very limited and in case, if there is any miscarriage of justice, then only the Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction and the same is not warranted in the case on hand. Hence, I answer point No.1 as ‘negative’. Point No.2:

10. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50