CRL.RP/919/2018 of SRI. S. KUBERANATH PARTHASARATHI Vs SMT. UMA SRINIVASAN IYER on 29 June 2026

ORAL ORDER

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

2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court while initiating the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is stated that she has been introduced to the accused through one Smt. Chenjodi Paranjyothy Wodeyar in art of living work shop in the month of February 2014. That the accused has told to the complainant that he is running M/s. ECF Online Trading Consultancy and also having link with M/s. ZLATO Capital Foreign Exchange Trading. As per the complainant, as per the advice of the accused, has invested Rs.9 lakhs by way of two cheques Rs.6 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs respectively in favour of

HC-KAR

Z.C. Associates on 26.02.2014. It is stated that the accused further asked her to invest her rest of the saving in the said Z.C. Associates. Accordingly, the complainant has invested her remaining savings of Rs.23 lakhs through two cheques for Rs.17 lakhs dated 19.03.2014 and Rs.6 lakhs dated 10.03.2014. As per the complainant, she has transferred the said amount from her account to the account of the accused. The complainant in order to meet the educational expenses of her daughter has requested the accused for return of the money. In response to the said request, the accused has paid Rs.7 lakhs in the month of May 2014 and Rs.6 lakhs in the month of May 2014 and Rs.6 lakhs in the month of May 2014. He assured to return the balance amount to the complainant, but he did not repay the same. In the meanwhile, the complainant has learnt that the accused closed his firm in Bengaluru and shifted to Tamil Nadu. The complainant repeatedly requested to the accused for repayment of her balance amount. In response to the demand of the complainant, the accused has issued cheque dated 20.06.2016 for Rs.14 lakhs on 14.09.2016 and another cheque dated 25.07.2016 for Rs.2 lakhs. On 05.10.2016, the said cheques

HC-KAR

were presented for encashment and the same are returned with endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 14.10.2016 which was duly served on accused on 17.10.2016. Despite of service of notice, the accused did not repay the amount. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint, cognizance was taken and accused was secured. He did not plead guilty and claims trial.

3. In order to prove the case, the complainant is examined as P.W.1 and got marked 12 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and the accused was subjected to recording the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and denied his defence evidence but he has confronted 7 documents during the cross- examination of P.W.1 and they got marked as Exs.D1 to D7. The trial Court having considered the material on record both oral as well as documentary, come to the conclusion that the documents which were confronted in the cross-examination clearly discloses that the complainant and the accused are known to each other and they are not strangers and there is transaction between the accused and complainant. The trial Court also taken note of the exhibits marked as Exs.P1 to P2

HC-KAR

which are cheques issued by the accused to the complainant towards the discharge of legally enforceable debt and signatures on the said cheques are also not disputed by the accused thereby convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’ for short). The said order of the trial Court was challenged by the accused before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1763/2017. The appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence on record, come to the conclusion that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference.

4. Further, the appellate Court while considering the material in paragraph No.11, taken note of the fact that the answer elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and nothing is elicited to rebut the case of the complainant and even no rebuttal evidence is led as per Section 139 of N.I.Act. and confirm the same.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that he has paid the amount to the

HC-KAR

complainant but the same was not taken in deducting the amount in respect of liability is concerned. The counsel would submits that the documents at Ex.D1 to D7 which are produced before this Court are not properly appreciated by both the Courts. Further, it is contended that both the Courts have not taken note of the fact that having considered the documents at Exs.P1 and P2, in the instant case the accused clearly proved that he never borrowed Rs.16,00,000/- from the complainant without considering the same, the trial Court convicted and sentence the accused and the very approach of both trial Court as well as the appellate Court is erroneous and the same requires interference by this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent brought to the notice of this Court the transaction between the parties particularly the documents at Exs.P1 and P2 were not disputed and also notice was served and the same was acknowledged. The documents at Exs.P8 and 9 which are bank statement of account and so also Exs.P10 to 12 i.e. three mail messages wherein it is categorically admitted the liability of the accused. In reply to this argument, learned counsel for

HC-KAR

the revision petitioner would submit that payment was made in terms of Ex.P5 and exhibit ‘D’ series by way of $2,500 and also $12,500 and he is not liable to pay the amount and the same was not even considered by both the Courts. Further, the counsel appearing for respondent would submit that all those payments are taken note of and the same was also furnished in terms of statement of account extract and the same discloses that subsequent to issuance of Cheques, no such payment is made.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent, the grounds urged in the revision petition and so also oral the contentions of both the counsel, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

a. Whether both the Courts have committed error in considering the material on record and the orders suffers from its legality and correctness?

b. What order?

8. Having heard the respective counsels and also on perusal of material placed on record, the very documents which

HC-KAR

are marked as Exs.D1 to D7 clearly discloses that there is transaction between the accused and the complainant, payment by the accused in favour of complainant and also g-mail correspondences between the complainant and the accused i.e. Exs.D2 and D3 and so also documents at Exs.P10 to P12 i.e. mail messages wherein the accused has categorically admitted the liability and sought time to repay the amount. Thereafter, the cheques at Exs.P1 to P2 were issued and the accused has also not disputed the issuance of cheques and the signature in the cheques. As per the submission made by the learned counsel for revision petitioner that in the said cheques, two names were mentioned one is the revision petitioner and the other is a lady who is not prosecuted and the said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that she is not the signatory to the Cheque and the revision petitioner is the authorized signatory. When such being the case, the very contention of the counsel cannot be accepted.

9. Further, the other contention with regard to Exs.D5 and D6 is concerned, the said amounts are not deducted and at the same time, it cannot be accepted. The bank statements at

HC-KAR

Exs.P8 and P9 are produced before the Court and the notice was given and the same are not disputed by the accused and the reply is not given to the said notice and only the documents at Exs.D1 to D7 are confronted during the course of cross- examination of P.W.1 and the same are not substantiated with regard to the defence which was taken and the Trial Court has taken of these aspects in paragraph Nos.13, 14,15 and 16. It also taken note of the documents at Exs.D1 to D7 as well as Exs.P1 and P2-Cheques which are issued by the accused in favour of complainant towards discharge legally enforceable debt and there is no preponderance of probability to come to other conclusion as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Moreover, there is no rebuttal evidence by the accused and even he was not examined himself as witness before the trial Court and contended that the cheques were taken in the police station. In order to substantiate the said aspect, nothing is placed on record and even he did not enter the witness box with regard to the defence taken. As such, I do not find any ground to come to other conclusion that the order passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness. This Court has taken

HC-KAR

note of documents at ‘D’ series as well as evidence of P.W.1. Further, the documents at Exs.D1 to D7 which are confronted will not come to the aid of the revision petitioner and therefore, the orders of trial Court as well as appellate Court do not suffer from its legality and correctness. Hence, I answer the above points in negative. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

MD, SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75