CRL.RP/1026/2024 of MR MAHESH B Vs SRI P N NANDISH on 3 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court while invoking Section 138 of N.I. Act is that complainant and accused are friends. The complainant is an agriculturist, having irrigated lands and raising commercial crops and also running hardware store under the name and style ‘SVS Hardware Glass and Plywood at Kanampalli Bangalore Road Chintamani and both of them were having mutual acquaintance with each other. In the first week of July, 2020, the accused approached the complainant with B.S. Ravi to pay hand loan amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and complainant paid the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- in the second week of 2020 and he agreed to repay the same within 4 months. When the complainant insisted to repay, the accused issued a subject

HC-KAR

matter of Cheque and when the Cheque was presented before the Bank, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Immediately, the same was informed, legal notice was given to him, notice was duly served on him, but he did not comply with the demand. The complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and the accused was secured and he did not plead guilty.

3. Hence, the complainant, in order to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P8. He was also subjected to 313 statement and thereafter, led his defence evidence by examining himself as D.W.1 and marked two documents as Exs.D1 and D2.

4. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence Exs.D1 and D2 and also the evidence of D.W.1, the defence of the accused is that he has received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as loan and at that time, he had issued the subject matter of Cheque and also other contention is that he had no financial capacity to lend money. In the cross- examination of D.W.1, he admitted that his native place is

HC-KAR

Santhekallahalli Village and both are having financial transactions with each other. He further admits that for securing the Cheque, he has not initiated any action against the complainant, as he had faith on the complainant and the complainant told that do not initiate any criminal case against him.

5. Having taken note of admission on the part of D.W1 with regard to the transaction between the complainant and accused, the evidence of D.W.1 was extracted in paragraph No.31 of the Trial Court and particularly, with regard to the correct address of the accused was discussed in paragraph No.33 which was admitted and the Trial Court also invoked Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. The statutory notice of dishonour of Cheque was issued and the same was served and no response from the accused. All these factors were taken note by the Trial Court and the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence in Crl.A.No.41/2023, particularly in Nos.18, 19 and 20, the First Appellate Court considered the documents of exhibit ‘P’ series and also the document of exhibit ‘D’ series i.e. Exs.D1 and D2,

HC-KAR

notarized copy of Aadhaar card and also election card. In paragraph No.19, considered the rebuttal evidence and arrived at the conclusion that there is no such rebuttal evidence and concurred with the same.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in not appreciating the defence and particularly, contend that entire deposition of the complainant in the cross is against to his case and Cheque was issued in respect of previous transaction and the petitioner was not having financial capacity and the same is also not appreciated by the Trial Court.

7. Having considered the grounds urged in the revision petition as well as the submission of learned counsel for the respondent, both the Courts have taken note of the material and particularly, taken note of admission on the part of D.W.1 in the cross-examination where he has admitted the transaction between both of them and though the accused contend that he has not received that much amount, but, at one breath he says that he received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and in order to

HC-KAR

substantiate that he repaid the amount also, nothing is placed on record. With regard to the address is concerned and service of notice also, though contend that notice is not served, but postal acknowledgement is produced as Ex.P7. Under the circumstances, I do not find any error on the part of both the Courts and the Trial Court and First Appellate Court rightly appreciated the evidence and the order of both the Courts not suffers from its legality and correctness. Hence, no ground is made out to exercise the power admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37