CRL.RP/164/2024 of RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs SUBBE GOWDA on 20 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in CC No. 4975/2018 passed by the trial Court and also confirmation order passed in Criminal Appeal No.197/2022 by the appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of complainant before the trial Court that the complainant and accused are known to each other and the accused on 02.08.2018

HC-KAR

had availed the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in the year 2018 and assured that he will repay the said amount. Further, the accused has issued post dated Cheque dated 25.10.2018 for an amount of Rs2,00,000/- in favour of complainant towards discharge of loan on the day on which he received the amount. The said cheque was presented for encashment and the same was returned with an endorsement ‘exceeds arrangement’. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused. Inspite of it, the accused neither reply to the said notice nor he come forward to pay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. The accused was secured before the trial Court and he did not plead guilty and claims the trial.

4. In order to prove the case, the complainant is examined as P.W.1. and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P6. The accused also examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked documents as Exs.D1, D2 and D2(a). The

HC-KAR

main defence is that the complainant had no financial capacity to lend the amount and the two cheques were issued to the complainant in relation to chit fund transaction and even though the amount was taken by the accused in relation to the said chit fund transaction, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the account of complainant. Having perused Exs.D1 and D2 and also D2(a), that is in the month of June 2018 but this transaction is of the year 2018 in the month of August and that is prior to the present transaction and P.W.1 also given explanation with regard to different transaction and also it has to be noted that when the notice was issued and the same was heard and no reply was given with regard to the financial capacity is concerned. Document of Ex.P6 is also got marked i.e. copy of lease agreement dated 23.04.2018 and documents with regard to contention that only taken an amount of Rs.50,000/-, the same is repaid is not substantiated and there is no any rebuttal evidence as under Section 139 of Negotiable

HC-KAR

Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as N.I. Act for short). The trial Court accepted the case of complainant and judgment of conviction and order of sentence is passed against the accused. The same is challenged before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.197/2022. The appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly considering the arguments advanced by the complainant before the appellate Court, taken note of in paragraph Nos.32, 33 and 34, come to conclusion that record clearly discloses that there is transaction between the complainant and accused and also the lending of loan amount, so also capacity to pay the said loan amount is taken note of particularly considering the document at Ex.P6 and confirmed the same.

5. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in his argument contend that both the Courts have committed an error in not considering the grounds

HC-KAR

which have been urged and defence evidence also led and documents Exs.D1,D2 and D2(a) is also marked. Further, in respect of payment of Rs.50,000/-, it is very clear the same is not taken note of by both the Courts.

6. The counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that prior to this transaction and the same is also explained by the P.W.1 that the said transaction is in respect of chit transaction and not with the complainant but with complainant’s wife. Having re- considered the material and records of Exs.D1 and D2 is in respect of payment in the month of June,2018. But it is the specific case of the complainant that amount was availed in the month of August 2018 and cheque was given on 25.10.2018 and the same was bounced and when the notice was given, no reply was given and the defence which was taken is nothing but an afterthought. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition and there is no any error on the part of the trial Court and

HC-KAR

appellate Court considering the ground as well as reasoning and the same not suffers from its legality and correctness.

Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25