CRL.RP/667/2026 of SRI.C.CHANDRA, Vs SRI.U.S.JAGADEESH, on 8 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. This revision petition is filed against concurrent finding of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and also confirmation order passed in Criminal Appeal No.67/2024.

3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that both the complainant and accused were having acquaintance with each other and on 15.11.2011, the accused borrowed Rs.2,90,000/- from the complainant for the purpose of his legal necessity i.e., to repair the milk van and also to meet the domestic requirements. On the same day, he has issued post dated Cheque dated 16.12.2011 for the said amount. When the Cheque was presented, it was returned with

HC-KAR

an endorsement ‘insufficient fund’. The notice was issued and the same was duly served. Inspite of service, the accused has not paid the amount nor given any reply. Hence, complaint was filed, cognizance was taken and accused was secured and he did not plead guilty.

4. The complainant is examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P15. On the other hand, accused also examined as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D8.

5. The first contention of the accused before the Trial Court is that the complainant was not having sufficient income to lend money and to that effect, when D.W.1 was cross- examined, answer given by D.W.1 is very clear that he is having 6 to 7 acres of land and having 2 houses and also having a cement and manure shop in his village. Hence, the first defence that complainant was not competent to advance the amount was overturned and also with regard to the other defence is concerned that he was doing illegal money lending business, document of Ex.D8 is marked and the same is considered in paragraph No.26 by the Trial Court that mere

HC-KAR

filing of charge-sheet is not sufficient to hold that complainant is running illegal money lending business and the Court also has to take note whether there is passing of consideration and whether there is legally enforceable debt. In the case on hand, the accused contend that he had issued two Cheques and one demand pro-note to the complainant in connection with chit transaction and to prove the same, he has not produced any document and to substantiate that he was running the chit business and illegal money lending business, nothing is placed on record. Hence, the very defence of the accused was not accepted and the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused.

6. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material, taken note of the defence while cross-examining the P.W.1 and also the evidence of D.W.1 which goes to show that complainant possessed land properties which also evidence from the record of rights produced by the complainant as per Ex.P7 and also the admission which was taken before the Trial Court was discussed in paragraph Nos.31, 32 and 33 and

HC-KAR

comes to the conclusion that there is no any probable defence and presumption is not rebutted under Section 139 of N.I. Act.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in not considering the defence of the accused and particularly, the document of Ex.D8 which clearly establishes that complainant was doing illegal money lending business and the materials which were placed on record was not considered.

8. Having considered the grounds which are urged in the revision petition as well as the reasoning given by the Trial Court, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court with regard to the competency of the complainant to advance money as well as defence that he was lending money and he was doing money lending business, observed that nothing is placed on record and mere filing of charge-sheet is not a ground to come to a conclusion that complainant was doing illegal money lending business and the same is a gospel truth to accept the defence of the revision petitioner. When such reasoning is given and the order of the Trial Court and the First

HC-KAR

Appellate Court not suffers from its legality and correctness, question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52