CRL.RP/393/2026 of SRI. SHIVAKUMARA Vs SRI. B. SUJAN RAM on 22 June 2026

JUDGEMENT

AND

ORDER

DATED 29.11.2025 IN CRL.A.NO.198/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MYSURU AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM ALL ALLEGATIONS.

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. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent is absent.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that both the complainant and the accused are known to each other and the accused availed loan of Rs.7,65,000/- from the complainant for his household and business on 28.04.2018. When the complainant demanded the money, the accused issued a cheque on 28.06.2018 and when the same was presented, it was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. The notice was sent to the accused and the same was returned with an endorsement “he is

HC-KAR

not in station” and he did not comply with the demand. Hence, the complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and the accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty. Hence, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 5. The accused also led his defence evidence. His defence before the Trial Court is that the cheque was given as security when the complainant was running the scheme and in the said scheme, he had to pay the amount of Rs.2,500/- for a period of 20 months and in return, the complainant used to give 20 grams of gold and at that time, the complainant had collected three cheques and the same are misused. But in the cross-examination, he admits that he was not the member of the said scheme and he was only making the payment. The Trial Court taken note of this evidence. In the evidence of P.W.1, a suggestion was made to P.W.1 that the address mentioned in the notice was not in respect of the notice of the accused and the same was not served and wrong address

HC-KAR

was given and the same was denied. However, he says that the notice was served. The defence which was taken was also put to the witness P.W.1 and he denied the same. P.W.1 says that he gave the amount to the accused in the year 2015, 2017 and 2018. It is the specific defence of the accused that the complainant was running the scheme and in said scheme, the member has to pay the amount of Rs.2,500/- for a period of 20 months. But what made the accused to give the cheque as security is not explained. The question of giving security does not arise when the very accused himself was depositing the amount of Rs.2,500/- to a particular scheme for a period of 20 months and in order to substantiate the said scheme also, nothing is placed on record. Even the subscribers of the said scheme have also not been examined before the Court. Except the oral evidence no other document is placed before the Court. Having considered the evidence of P.W.1, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that no such circumstances arises for issuance of the security

HC-KAR

cheque. The Appellate Court also appreciated both oral and documentary evidence available on record. There is no any rebuttal evidence before the Court. The cheque is admitted and the same is given to the complainant and when the suggestions are made to P.W.1, that is also denied.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the address of the accused is mentioned as No.108 instead of No.208. But not denies the very village, post and also the place. Even in the cross-examination also he did not make any suggestion to the witness P.W.1 that he was not residing in the address and also not put forward the address wherein he was residing. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court also taken note of that as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, if notice is sent to the correct address, it is deemed to have served. This Court also in several judgments categorically held that there is no specific denial of the address wherein he was not residing

HC-KAR

and not put to the witness that he was not residing in the very specific address and he was residing elsewhere and also not placed any document that he was residing in other address. Under the circumstances, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Having considered the material available on record, when the cheque was given and the defence was taken as security, the same is not substantiated and no rebuttal evidence under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47