CRL.RP/1057/2026 of SMT. ALPHONSA Vs SMT. MANJULA M L on 15 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

This revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.11.2023 passed in C.C.No.3257/2023 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment of confirmation dated 27.03.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.132/2023 by the Appellate Court.

2. Even though this matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2026 for suspension of sentence, taken up the same for admission.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

HC-KAR

4. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the complainant and the accused are known to each other. With that acquaintance, on 22.03.2018, accused requested the complainant for hand loan of Rs.3,50,000/- for her family necessities agreeing to repay the same within six months. Accordingly, the complainant paid the said amount by way of cash on the same day. After lapse of six months, the complainant requested the accused to repay the said amount and accused has issued subject matter of Cheque towards her liability. When the said Cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused and the same was returned with a shara ‘addressee not claimed return to sender’. Inspite of this, accused failed to repay the amount covered under the Cheque. Hence, the complaint was lodged and cognizance of was taken and accused was secured, she did not plead guilty and claims for trial.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, she herself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P7. On the other hand, accused either led the defence

HC-KAR

evidence or produced any documents in support of her case. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, in paragraph 19 observed that the defence of the accused that complainant has misused the cheque which was given for insurance and held that but failed to prove the circumstances of issuance of Cheque. In paragraph 15, the Trial Court taken note of suggestion made to PW1 during the course of cross examination with regard to issuance of two cheques and also the promissory note. PW1 also categorically says that promissory note was executed on 22.03.2018 and cheque was issued on 10.05.2019. In respect of earlier transaction also there is no any material before the court. With regard to the service of notice is concerned only suggestion was made that Ex.P6 is created but not denied the address mentioned in Ex.P6 with regard to service of notice. The trial Court also taken note of General Clause Act in paragraph 18 that if address is not disputed by the defence, Section 27 of General Clause Act would apply when the sender dispatched the notice by post with correct address. When there is no any defence evidence on the part of accused and

HC-KAR

signature on the cheque is admitted and issuance of even promissory note is also accepted while suggesting to the complainant PW1, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that accused failed to disprove the case of the complainant and comes to the conclusion that accused has admitted the Cheque but not rebutted the case of the complainant either leading defence evidence or cross-examining the PW1 effectively. Hence, convicted and sentenced the accused.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of material on record comes to the conclusion that in the absence of any kind of documents placed before the Court by the accused, the ground for present appeal is not forthcoming. The evidence of the complainant is not at all discarded in any manner by the accused or by putting suggestion to PW1. Once the Cheque is admitted, then the statutory presumption would follow in terms of Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act. Therefore, accused has failed to rebut the presumption under the said Act. Hence, held that Trial Court has properly appreciated the material on record

HC-KAR

while convicting the accused and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

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

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have not considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in a proper perspective since the transaction is between the complainant and the husband of the petitioner. The counsel contend that the subject matter of Cheque is misused since the same was issued by the petitioner towards insurance policy. The same has not been considered by both the Courts. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

9. Having hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that accused has admitted that cheque has been issued for the purpose of insurance and that has been misused. To prove the said fact no probable evidence is placed before the

HC-KAR

court. The counsel appearing for petitioner made an attempt to convince this Court that the transaction is between the complainant and also the husband of the petitioner. But to that effect also there is no any cross examination and accused also not disputed the issuance of the cheque and also the promissory note and during the course of cross-examination, petitioner's counsel himself suggested to the witness PW1 with regard to the issuance of cheque as well as execution of the promissory note. Hence, both the Courts come to the conclusion that accused failed to rebut the case of the complainant placing cogent evidence. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to admit the petition as the judgments of both the Courts not suffer from its legality and correctness. Hence, revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2026 is also dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN