CRL.RP/1091/2024 of SRI. D. PUTTASWAMY Vs SRI. B. PRABHU on 16 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant is that complainant and accused were known to each other, being close acquaintance on 30.06.2016, accused borrowed Rs.2,50,000 from the complainant to meet his daughter's marriage expenses, household expenses and to discharge hand loans and assured to repay the same within 3 months. But, he did not repay the same and accused issued the subject matter of Cheque dated 12.01.2017 on insisting to repay the amount. When the Cheque was presented, the same was dishonoured

HC-KAR

with an endorsement ‘account closed’. Hence, notice was issued and reply was given in terms of Ex.P6 and defence was taken that he had repaid the amount and only he had borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The Trial Court taking note of the defence as well as the case of complainant, discussed the same in paragraph No.10 and for having received only an amount of Rs.50,000/-, nothing is placed on record. Apart from that for having made the payment on different dates as replied and deposed before the Court, no documents are produced before the Court and even for misusing of the Cheque also, no action was taken and the same is considered in paragraph No.10 of the judgment of the Trial Court.

3. The conviction and sentence is also questioned in Crl.A.No.60/2022. The First Appellate Court also having taken note of the defence which was taken and also the case of complainant and when the Cheque is not disputed and signature is not disputed, in paragraph No.16 taken note of the defence that he has received only an amount of Rs.50,000/- that too, in the month of August 2010 and subsequently has repaid the amount nothing is placed on record. In paragraph

HC-KAR

No.18, the First Appellate Court also taken note that the accused has admitted that at the time of closing the bank account, he has to return the entire unused Cheque leaves to the bank. The question is when he has closed the bank account, why he has not returned the Cheque in issue to the bank is not stated. Normally, when a person closes the account, definitely he has to return the unused Cheques to the bank. But, here is a person, who claimed that he had closed the account, but did not return the Cheque to the bank, through which one can draw an inference that as subsequent to giving the Cheque in issue, the accused has got closed his account and the same is discussed in paragraph No.18. Having reassessed the material on record, the First Appellate Court confirmed the order of the Trial Court.

4. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the Courts have committed an error in not considering the defence of the accused and particularly, the reply notice which is marked as Ex.P6 and Ex.D1. The counsel also would submit that petitioner has not admitted the writings on the Cheque and he has not issued the Cheque to the

HC-KAR

respondent, except the Cheque, the respondent has not produced any document to show that he has advanced the loan amount to the petitioner. The counsel also vehemently contend that when there is no transaction to show that respondent has advanced the loan amount to the petitioner, the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court ought to have considered the same.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that no dispute with regard to issuance of Cheque and only defence was taken that he had availed the amount of Rs.50,000/- and also repaid the same. But, no document is placed before the Court for having repaid the amount and the same is considered by both the Courts.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent and taking note of defence which was taken that he had availed only Rs.50,000/- and repaid the said amount and to that effect, nothing is placed on record and also nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 regarding misusing of the Cheque and the counsel would contend that there was no such transaction.

HC-KAR

When there is a clear admission on the part of the accused that he had availed the loan of Rs.50,000/- and repaid, burden lies on the accused to disprove the case of complainant and there is no rebuttal evidence, except examining himself as D.W.1. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to admit the revision and the orders of both the Courts not suffer from its legality and correctness. Accordingly, and revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35