CRL.RP/842/2026 of SRI A PUNNIYA MURTHY Vs SRI I VIJAYA KUMAR on 30 June 2026

ORAL ORDER

This matter is listed for admission.

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

3. This petition is filed against the concurrent finding of trial Court as well as the appellate Court.

4. The factual matrix of the case of complainant before the trial Court are that the complainant is the proprietor of M/s. IVK Finance and the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) on 26.11.2023 from him for his family legal necessities and agreed to pay the same within six months along with interest. To that effect, the accused has issued a post dated Cheque. On the same day, he issued a promissory

HC-KAR

note and consideration receipt. When the complainant presented the said Cheque for encashment, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘exceeds arrangement’. Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 08.08.2024 and the same was served to the accused on 16.08.2024. Inspite of service of notice, the accused failed to repay the amount within stipulated period. With no other alternative, the complainant filed complaint against the accused. Thereafter, the cognizance was taken, the accused was secured and claims trial.

5. In order to prove the case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9 and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The accused was subjected to recording of statement as envisaged under Section 351 of BNSS (under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.) for which the accused denied the same and submits that he has defence evidence. But, he has not adduced any defence evidence.

HC-KAR

6. P.W.1 was subjected to cross-examination. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity to the accused, he did not made any attempt to cross-examine P.W.1. Moreover, the accused did not led any defence evidence. As such, the documents both oral as well as documentary evidence placed by the complainant remains unchallenged and there is no contra evidence to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant. By considering the fact that the issuance of Cheque and signature is not in dispute, the trial Court convicted and sentence the accused. The said judgment is challenged by the accused before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.17/2026. The appellate Court also reassessed the evidence both oral as well as documentary particularly in paragraph No.14, confirms the judgment passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that inspite of sufficient opportunity

HC-KAR

given to the accused, he did not turn up to led his evidence or to cross-examine P.W.1 and convicted him without considering his evidence. Further he contends that the criminal trial cannot be held in the absence of accused unless there are compelling reasons to do so, the decision that a criminal trial cannot be held in the absence of an accused unless there are compelling reasons to do so and that if incriminating evidence occurs in the testimony of the witness, the accused cannot exempt from Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the complainant has not produced any document to substantiate the same.

8. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that the trial Court has pronounced the judgment in his absence which is bad in law which requires interference by this Court.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also taken note of the material on record, the accused is represented through his counsel but he did not pursue the matter. Even he did not cross-examine

HC-KAR

P.W.1 inspite of sufficient opportunity is given and not led any defence evidence on his behalf. Issuance of Cheque and signature in the Cheque are not in dispute. Under the circumstances, the very contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. The proceedings under Section 138 of N.I.Act is not purely a criminal proceedings as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and it is a quasi criminal proceedings. This Court has also held in similar matters that even in the absence of counsel, the Court can consider the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., if the accused fails to appear before this Court and explain the incriminating circumstances. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to admit this revision and accordingly, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55