CRL.RP/1678/2025 of MR. V YATHISH BABU, Vs MR. RUDRESHAPPA B S, on 9 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

This revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2023 passed in C.C.No.1993/2017 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment of confirmation dated 13.08.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.44/2023.

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

3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the complainant and accused are having acquaintance with each other and in that acquaintance, accused approached the complainant for financial assistance for Rs.2,50,000/- in the month of November, 2014 agreeing to repay the same within six months. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 06.12.2014 through RTGS and

HC-KAR

Rs.50,000/- on 13.12.2014 through NEFT. But accused failed to keep up his promise to return the said amount as agreed. On several requests, accused issued two cheques for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards his liability. When the said cheques were presented, the same were returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, complainant has issued a legal notice and the same was served on the accused but he has repaid the amount. Hence, complaint is filed and cognizance was taken and accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P24. On the other hand, accused also examined himself as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D7. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, observed in paragraph 60 that in the cross examination of DW1 with regard to the service of notice he admits that it is the address of his brother, but no reply was given. So also in paragraph 63, accused admitted the subject matter of two cheques; signature and also the contents

HC-KAR

of the document of cheques except the date. The Trial Court taken note that the amount was paid by the complainant to accused through RTGS as well as NEFT and in this regard, the complainant has produced documents. Thus, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that complainant has proved his case and convicted and sentence the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record taken note of payment of amount to accused through RTGS as well as NEFT and so also the admission on the part of accused with regard to the issuance of the cheques and signature and also the handwriting available in the cheques. Hence, the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that accused has not rebutted the case of the complainant and 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.

HC-KAR

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record while convicting the petitioner since petitioner also produced the documents in support of his case. Hence, the judgments of both the Courts suffer from its legality and correctness. Thus, interference of this Court is required.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the complainant has lent the money to the accused to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- through RTGS and NEFT respectively. In this regard, the complainant has produced the documents at Ex.P14 to 16. The accused also not disputed the cheques, his signature, handwriting except the date. Accused also admitted issuance of legal notice to his brother’s address but he has not replied to the said notice. When there is no rebuttal evidence before the Court, both the Courts comes to the conclusion that the accused has failed to prove his defence placing cogent evidence and complainant has proved his case. Hence, this Court finds that the judgment of both the Courts do not suffers

HC-KAR

from its legality and correctness since both the Courts have considered the oral and documentary evidence placed on record in a proper perspective. Under such circumstances, there is no ground to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN