CRL.RP/1591/2023 of SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR B.C Vs M/S MCI BANGALORE FINANCE (R) on 2 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

This revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 05.02.2022 passed in C.C.No.1150/2019 and also against the judgment dated 03.11.2023 passed in Crl.A.No.276/2022.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused approached the complainant to avail a short term loan of Rs.30,00,000/- for his business purpose and for his immediate need and agreed to pay the interest at the rate of 21% per annum and also agreed to return the loan amount within short time. Thus, the complainant lent an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- under the loan

HC-KAR

account No.260 of 2018 to the accused by way of RTGS. When accused did not repay the amount as agreed, cheque was issued and when the said Cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘payment stopped’. Then, notice was issued by the complainant to the accused and the same was served but the accused failed to repay the amount as agreed. Hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. Accused was secured and he did not plead guilty.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the Manager of the complainant company examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P17. In order to substantiate the defence of the accused, it is contented that accused took commercial building of Thimmegowda for running a hotel in the name of his son and his wife and he gave a security deposit of Rs.22,50,000/- to Thimmegowda. During running of his business, the son of Thimmegowda started disturbing his business and forcibly trying to take back the possession of his commercial properties from the accused. Therefore, the father of Raghavendra Gowda i.e., Thimmegowda, requested the accused that he would return his

HC-KAR

security deposit amount and requested for blank cheque for in between vacating the same. Therefore, he requested the complainant firm to transfer an amount of Rs.22,50,000/- from complainant firm to the accused account. The present accused filed a suit against Raghavendra Gowda for the relief of injunction and the said suit is pending. Accused contended that he never took any loan from the complainant firm and he had not executed any documents in favour of the complainant firm.

5. The Trial Court taking into note of the fact held that though PW1 is cross examined in length, nothing is elicited from the mouth of the PW1 and held that the amount was transferred to the account of the accused through RTGS to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- and the same is not in dispute. The Trial Court considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in paragraphs 17 to 19 and comes to the conclusion that mere explanation is not sufficient to rebut the presumption and same is not rebutted under Section 139 of N.I. Act. Hence, convicted and sentenced the accused.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court.

HC-KAR

The Appellate Court also having considered both oral and documentary evidence, made an observation in paragraph 27 that non-taking any legal action either against the Thimmegowda or against the complainant for the alleged mis- utilisation of cheque and non-entering the witness box by accused are the strongest circumstances to draw inference against 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 there is no dispute with regard to availing of loan and execution of the document of Ex.P1 to P17. But exorbitantly charged 21% interest on the loan amount and there was no any license to the complainant.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that the Trial Court rightly considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and 21%

HC-KAR

interest is not exorbitant since the same was agreed by the accused at the time of availing the loan itself including penal interest. Hence, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there is exorbitant rate of interest cannot be accepted.

10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the execution of the document of Ex.P1 and loan documents is not in dispute and having availed the loan is also not disputed and liability is also not disputed. The only technical point rised before this court is that the interest charged at 21% p.m. is exorbitant. But in the loan application itself it is agreed to pay the interest and penal interest. Under the circumstances, the very loan cannot be disputed when the cheque was given acknowledging the liability. The fact is that the accused did not enter into the witness box, except cross examining the PW1. The accused has not made any efforts to rebut the presumption by cogent proof. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition. The scope of revision is very limited. Only if the order of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness,

HC-KAR

then only this court can exercise the revisional powers. But in the case on hand, no such circumstances are warranted. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN