CRL.RP/1638/2024 of RAFEEQ Vs RAJU on 22 July 2026

JUDGMENT

DATED 08.11.2024 PASSED BY THE IV

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

HC-KAR

ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HASSAN SITTING AT CHANNARAYAPATNA IN CRL.A.NO.103/20242 AND TO REVERSE THE FINDINGS AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGED CHARGES FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I ACT.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court while invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is that, the accused and the complainant are known to each other since seven years. On account of said acquaintance, the accused had sought for hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for the purpose of marriage of his sister in the month of August 2016. On the demand made by the accused, the complainant advanced a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused on 17.08.2016. The accused had assured that he would repay the amount

HC-KAR

within 2-3 months and he had also issued the subject matter of the cheque and asked him to present the same after four months. Accordingly, when the cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds.”. Hence, notice was issued to the accused and the same was served and reply was given stating that the cheque was lost and intimation was given to the bank. The accused did not comply with the demand and hence, complaint was filed, cognizance was taken and the accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty and claimed the trial. Hence, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 12. On the other hand, the accused examined himself as D.W.1. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, defence was taken that father of the accused used to take loan from the complainant and on one such occasion, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was taken from the complainant and father of the accused

HC-KAR

repaid that amount, but cheque was not returned and the same was misused.

3. The Trial Court having taken note of the reply as well as the cross-examination of P.W.1 and also the defence which was taken, discussed the same in paragraph No.17 and did not accept the contention of the accused. The Trial Court also taken note of the documents Exs.P.1 to 12 and accepted the case of the complainant and convicted and sentenced the accused.

4. The same was challenged before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court having taken note of the evidence available on record, particularly in paragraph No.23 extracted the reply given by the accused and in paragraph No.24 extracted the evidence of the accused, who has been examined as D.W.1. The Trial Court having taken note of the answers elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 in the cross-examination in paragraph No.25 and having considered the reply as well as the evidence of

HC-KAR

D.W.1 and suggestion made to P.W.1 and also the evidence of P.W.1, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that when a specific defence was taken during the course of cross-examination that there was a loan transaction between the father of the accused and the complainant and the complainant had lent an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the father of the accused and the same was repaid, the said defence was not accepted. The learned counsel would contend that the complainant was not having financial capacity to make the payment of Rs.3,00,000/-. P.W.1 was also cross-examined to that effect and he has given an answer that he is an agriculturist and also doing the business of jaggery as well as coconut. The same was not denied by the accused. The answers elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 is that he used to get the income of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per year and hence, the learned counsel would submit that out of

HC-KAR

annual income of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-, the question of payment of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused does not arise. P.W.1 categorically says that he is doing the business from 1994 onwards.

6. D.W.1 was also examined before the Trial Court and the Trial Court also taken note of the answers elicited from the mouth of D.W.1. D.W.1 categorically says that he used to give 3 to 4 signed cheques to his father when he was going outside and the same was misused by the complainant. But in the cross-examination, he categorically admits that he has not given reply notice and Ex.P.5 was confronted, wherein his signature was found. Even he had gone to the extent of denying of giving reply notice. A suggestion was made that in terms of Ex.P.5 reply, he has stated that cheques are lost. But he categorically admits that on 04.06.2016 he has not given any complaint to SBI, Hassan branch, not to release the amount. He categorically admits that the marriage of his sister was performed in 2012 and he had signed the

HC-KAR

cheque and handed over the same to his father and not given to anyone else.

7. Having taken note of these admissions and also the contra versions of defence in the reply notice as well as in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and also the answers elicited from the mouth of D.W.1, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence. When the order of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court not suffers from its legality and correctness and when there is no miscarriage of justice while considering the same, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38