CRL.RP/1455/2022 of M/S D K POULTRY Vs M/S MANOHARLAL P CO on 22 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

This revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 27.11.2019 passed in C.C.No.57303/2018 and also against the judgment dated 13.09.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.25375/2019.

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 No.2 borrowed loan of Rs.30

HC-KAR

lakhs in June 2017 from the complainant to meet his urgent business needs agreeing to pay interest at 1.2% per month. Accordingly, paid the interest till December 2017 towards loan amount. After December 2017, accused failed to pay any loan amount or interest amount. Towards said liability, accused No.2 issued ten cheques for Rs.1,80,000/- each. When the complainant presented the said ten cheques, the same were dishonoured with an endorsement ‘account closed’ on 21.06.2018. Hence, the complainant got issued the legal notice to accused Nos.1 and 2 calling upon them to repay the cheques amount and the said notice was received by accused No.1 and accused No.2 refused to receive the same. Since accused failed to repay the cheques amount. Hence, complaint was lodged, cognizance was taken and accused was secured and did not plead guilty and claims the trial.

4. In order prove the case of the complainant, examined its authorized signatory as CW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P27. On the other hand, accused No.2 examined himself as DW1 and got marked the document as Ex.D1. The Trial Court taken note of the case of the

HC-KAR

complainant and also accused wherein accused has admitted the loan transaction, but, only contention of the accused that he has repaid that amount. But Trial Court held that no such documents are produced before the Court for having repaid the loan amount. The Trial Court while answering Point No.3 held that considering the facts and circumstances of this case, nature, year of the transaction, nature of the instrument involved, provisions of Section 117 of N.I. Act, cost of litigation and the rate of interest proposed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (1) SCC 260 (R Vijayan vs Baby) etc., this Court is of the considered view that it is just and desirable to impose the fine of Rs.20,40,000/- and out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.5,000/- has to be remitted to the State and remaining amount of Rs.20,35,000/- has to be given to the complainant. The trial Court in paragraph 26 held that accused has contended that Ex.P3 to P12 – cheques have been issued by the accused in blank by way of security to the loan of Rs.30,00,000/- at the time of taking the said money itself and cheques have not been issued towards repayment of loan and interest. But it is specific case of complainant that towards

HC-KAR

repayment of loan and interest, the cheques are issued. The Trial Court also taken note of Section 20 of N.I. Act which authorises payee to fill up the blank cheques. The defence was taken that entire amount was repaid, thus, not disputed the loan transaction. Hence, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly there was an admission with regard to the availment of loan and also issuance of cheques at Ex.P3 to P12 for Rs.1,80,000/- each regarding legally enforceable debt. The loan amount is of Rs.30,00,000/- and the same was taken note of and with regard to the defence that repaid the loan amount, comes to the conclusion that nothing was produced to prove the same. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

HC-KAR

7. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in his argument would vehemently contend that both the Courts have failed to consider the defence which was taken i.e., having repaid the loan amount. The Trial Court and Appellate Court also failed to consider that complainant categorically stated that accused had agreed to pay interest at 1.2% per month i.e., Rs.36,000/- per month for Rs.30,00,000/-. The specific case of the complainant is that interest part was paid, but not paid the amount towards the balance amount and also the interest after December 2017. Both the Courts have not considered the material on record in a proper perspective. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. On perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the accused has not disputed the transaction between the complainant and the accused and also issuance of the cheques are also not disputed. Only defence was taken that cheques were issued at the time of availing the loan as security and he had repaid the loan amount. But he did not place it on record to show that he had repaid the loan amount with interest. Except

HC-KAR

oral evidence that he has repaid the amount, nothing is placed on record. Trial Court taken note of the same and also considered the letter of authorisation at Ex.P1 and held that it is not enough to create agency in CW1 on behalf of payee and as such complaint is not filed by payee and as such complaint needs to be dismissed and the same is also taken note of by the trial Court in paragraph 22 while considering the technical objection. When there is a clear admission on the part of accused with regard to availing of loan, though contend that repayment was made, the same is not substantiated placing any rebuttal evidence before the Court as contemplated under Section 139 of N.I. Act. Hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain this revision petition. This Court can exercise the revisional powers only if miscarriage of justice is done and if there is non-appreciation of evidence and the same is not done by both the Courts. Thus, there is no any preponderance of probabilities. Hence, revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN