CRL.RP/458/2026 of SRI S H UMESH Vs SRI S M MUNIRAJU on 2 July 2026

JUDGMENT

DATED 06.12.2025 IN CRL.A.NO.844/2022, PASSED BY THE LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THE REVISION PETITION.

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. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision petition is filed against concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that parties are close relatives and both are having cordial acquaintance. On the pretext of said cordial acquaintance, the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each on 01.06.2018 and 04.06.2018. Rs.70,000/- each on 08.06.2018 and 07.09.2018, Rs.1,00,000/- on 06.10.2018 and Rs.60,000/- on 17.10.2018, in all Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant to meet his urgent

HC-KAR

legal necessity and promised to repay the amount in November, 2019. After lapse of agreed period, the complainant has approached the accused and on demand, accused has issued the post-dated Cheque dated 03.02.2020 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. When the same was presented, it was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, legal notice was issued, the same was served and the accused has not issued any reply to the notice nor paid the amount. Hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. The 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 P5 and accused was also subjected to 313 statement and accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 and D2.

5. The Trial Court considered the defence and admitted facts in paragraph No.15 and also the cross- examination of P.W.1 in paragraph No.17 and taken note of contradictory statement made by the accused i.e., in one breath, he says that he has received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and in another breath, he says that he has

HC-KAR

received only an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- while adducing the evidence and found contra statements made by the accused.

6. The second contention is regarding service of notice and accused has acknowledged the contents of the statutory notice and not given any reply. Thirdly, the contrary evidence of the accused was taken note of and the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that complainant has established his case. Though, the accused contends that he repaid the loan amount to the complainant on 31.10.2018 to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/-, the same was denied and the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that no such document is placed before the Court that he made the payment of Rs.3,00,000/-. Having considered these materials on record, convicted and sentenced the accused.

7. The order of the Trial Court is challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.844/2022. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material on record, taken note that amount was paid on different dates, in total to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. The accused, in order to discharge his burden, though examined himself as D.W.1, not placed any

HC-KAR

material before the Court for having repaid the amount as well as to rebut the contention that he has only received the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- or Rs.3,00,000/-. But, when the Cheque was issued, it was bounced and no reply was given by the accused to the legal notice issued by the complainant. The First Appellate Court considered all these factors and confirmed the same.

8. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the Courts committed an error in not considering the material on record, particularly, the counsel would submit that when the amount was paid by way of cash deposit to the account of the complainant on the particular date, the same was denied with an intention to make wrongful gain and the said submission cannot be accepted for the reason that, if the accused has deposited the amount to the account of the complainant, the accused ought to have produced the receipt for having deposited the same.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that having taken note of the bank statement of the complainant, the accused made an attempt to state that he

HC-KAR

paid the said amount. But, not substantiated the same by producing any material. The other contention of counsel appearing for the petitioner is that no notice was served, but produced the acknowledgment before the Court for having served the notice, but no reply was given. The signature available in Ex.P4 and also the Cheque are one and the same and the same is taken note by the Trial Court and the Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that accused has not given any reply to the legal notice. If really, the accused had repaid the amount by depositing the amount to the account of the complainant, he would have stated the same in the reply notice, but afterthought took the defence that he made the payment and his own conduct is very clear that he is not firm about how much amount he has received. In one breath, he says that he has received Rs.3,00,000/- and in another breath, he says that he has received Rs.2,00,000/- and all these contradictions are taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. When such being the case, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. This Court can exercise the powers of revision, only if order suffers from its legality and correctness and the

HC-KAR

scope of revision is very limited and I do not find any such ground in the case on hand. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52