CRL.RP/1339/2022 of MARIGOWDA Vs H N RAGHU on 8 July 2026

ORDER

DATED 12.09.2022 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.113/2019 BY THE HONBLE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, SITTING AT HUNSUR AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2019 PASSED IN C.C.NO.852/2017 BY THE HONBLE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HUNSUR AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I ACT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

This matter is listed for admission.

2. Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the counsel for the respondent.

3. The factual matrix of case of complainant before the trial Court while invoking Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,(hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’ for short) that complainant and accused are acquainted with each other and accused approached the complainant for financial assistance. He borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in the month of February 2017,

HC-KAR

agreeing to repay the same within one month. After the expiry of the said period, when the complainant approached the accused and demanded money, he expressed his inability to repay the same and due to financial constraints and subsequently, issued a post-dated cheque dated 01.03.2017 and on presentation of the same, returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Thereafter, the legal notice was issued and in spite of service of notice, the accused neither replied nor complied with the demand. Hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. The accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claims trial.

4. In order to prove his case, the complainant is examined as P.W.1. and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P5. On the other hand, the accused also examined himself as D.W1. and no documents are produced. The trial Court having considered the evidence of D.W.1, who has deposed that he has not given any cheque in favour of the complainant and the handwriting and signature on the

HC-KAR

cheque are not his signature and no notice has been served on him. He also contended that the signature marked as Exhibit P5 is not his signature and he has no knowledge about the presentation of the cheque. But in the cross examination, he has admitted that address suggested by the complainant is his address and further admits that post sent to the said address will serve on him. Ex.P1 is the cheque pertaining to the account of accused and signature marked in Ex.1(a) is his signature. Having taken note of the evidence and also the cross examination elicited from the mouth of DW1, the trial Court considered the same in paragraph No.10. Even the accused has admitted the address suggested to him and all these factors were taken note of by the trial Court and also the appellate court while considering the material on record. Even the appellate Court also with regard to re- appreciation, taken note of admission on the part of D.W.1. wherein, he has disputed the issuance of cheque and signature, but in the cross-examination, categorically

HC-KAR

admitted the same and so also in respect of the address furnished by him and thereby confirmed the same.

5. Having considered the grounds urged in the revision petition and also reiterated the same that both the Courts have not taken note of the defence of the revision petitioner and having considered the admission on the part of D.W.1, the grounds which have been urged in the revision petition cannot be accepted. Both the Courts have taken note of the fact that the cheque as well as the notice was served and no reply was given. There is no rebuttable evidence by the accused though he examined himself as D.W.1 and cross examination goes against the revision petitioner. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition and revision petition is dismissed accordingly.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27