CRL.RP/468/2024 of SHWETHA CATERINGS Vs SRI. RAJESH B D on 22 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

This revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 31.03.2023 passed in C.C.No.8719/2021 and also against the judgment dated 19.02.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.568/2023.

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

3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that accused has approached the complainant and requested for a hand loan of Rs.6,50,000/- for improvement of her catering business and she had promised that she will repay the amount within one year. Hence, the complainant paid the said amount in cash to the accused and towards repayment of the said amount, accused had issued a Cheque and when the said cheque was presented, the same was dishonored for the reason ‘destroyed’. Hence, the complainant issued the legal notice and the same was served

HC-KAR

on the accused. Even after service of notice, accused has not repaid the amount. Hence, complaint was filed, cognizance was taken and accused was secured. The accused did not plead guilty and claims the trial.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P6. On the other hand, one witness was examined as DW1 but no documents are produced. The only defence which was taken by accused is that she had availed the loan of Rs.10,000 from one Smt. Mamata and gave the cheque and cheque was misused. But in the cross examination, DW1 categorically admitted that no steps was taken against the Mamata for misusing of the Cheque and even no complaint was given. Reply given as per Ex.P6 stating that cheque was lost. But at the time of cross examination of PW1 different defence was taken that availed the amount from Mamata and gave the cheque. Considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that accused has not rebutted the case of the complainant placing

HC-KAR

cogent materials. Hence, 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 having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and also taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rangappa v. Mohan reported in (2010 ) 11 SC 441 and held that when the defence was taken that he had borrowed loan of Rs.10,000/- from Mamata, no material is produced and the same is taken note of in paragraph 23 and said Mamata was also not examined before the Court. Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence, 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.

7. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts have

HC-KAR

committed an error in considering the defence of the petitioner and not considered the evidence of DW1 in right perspective while giving its findings. The reasoning of both the Courts is also erroneous and also contend that the fine imposed by the Trial Court is exorbitant. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

8. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent submits that Trial Court and Appellate Court having considered the defence comes to the conclusion that defence theory is not substantiated by leading any rebuttal evidence and theory of Mamata was not substantiated that availed the loan of Rs.10,000/- from Mamata and gave the cheque to the Mamata. Hence, it does not require interference of this Court.

9. Having heard the counsel appearing for petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that with regard to the transaction is concerned, though it is disputed and taken the defence that amount was taken from Mamata and cheque was given to her and she has misused the same but the said Mamata was not examined before the Court and to substantiate

HC-KAR

the defence also nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW1. No doubt, reply was given in terms of Ex.P6 and reply of accused is contrary to the defence which was taken during the course of cross examination of PW1. Hence, both Courts have considered the evidence available on record particularly the evidence of DW1 wherein he did not dispute the Cheque, but only contention that, cheque was given to one Mamata and with regard to the transaction between Mamata and accused also not substantiated. Under the circumstances, I do not find any error on the part of the finding of Trial Court and Appellate Court in appreciating the evidence available on record. There is no any rebuttal evidence. The burden shifts on the complainant only if the accused makes out a case of doubtful transaction between the complainant and accused and said circumstances is not warranted in the case on hand. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the revision petition. Hence, revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN