CRL.RP/727/2026 of SRI C NUTHAN GOWDA Vs SRI SANDEEPA.R on 22 June 2026

ORAL ORDER

This matter is listed for consideration of IA No.1/2026.

2. There is a delay of 40 days in filing the revision petition. IA No.3/2026 is filed seeking for suspension of sentence.

3. Having considered the case of the complainant before the trial Court that the complainant and the accused are close relatives and neighbouring villagers, who are well known to each other. On the said acquaintance, the accused approached the complainant on 03.06.2016 and requested him to lend sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) to meet his financial problems, business developments and other family legal necessities. Accordingly, the complainant

HC-KAR

advanced the said amount on 13.06.2016 and at that time, the accused promised to repay the same within one month. After one month, the complainant approached the accused and demanded to repay the said amount as promised by him. But the accused informed to come to his home on 15.07.2016. Then, complainant went to house of the accused, wherein he had issued a cheque dated 15.07.2016. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker and the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the notice was issued. In spite of issuance of notice, the accused did not comply with the demand notice and the notice sent to him returned as refused. Hence, without any other alternative, the complainant has filed the complaint against the accused.

4. The cognizance was taken and accused did not plead guilty and claims the trial. Hence, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and also in whose presence the amount was given also examined as P.W.2 and got

HC-KAR

marked document for having withdrawn the amount in terms of Ex.P6 to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) and also the cheque which was bounced. Thereafter, the notice was given and the notice returned with postal shara ‘refused’. The accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked 3 documents at Exs.D1 to D3. The accused did not dispute the issuance of the cheque and also admits that he has not taken any action against him when the cheque was misused and apart from that he categorically admits that he has raised loan from others also and he used to issue Cheque to others. Further, others also have filed case against this accused and the same is taken note of in paragraph No.18 of the judgment of the trial Court.

5. When the defence was taken that the complainant was not having sufficient income to lend the money, the trial Court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Basilingappa vs. Mudibasappa reported in (2019) 5 SCC 418 and the

HC-KAR

trial Court also taken note of Ex.P6-bank statement wherein it discloses the drawing of money.

6. Further, the trial Court also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of APS Forex Service Pvt. Ltd., vs. Shakti International Fashion Linkers and Others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 193, wherein it is held that whenever the accused has questioned the financial capacity of the complainant in support of his probable defence, despite the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, about the presumption of legal enforceability and such presumption is rebuttable, thereafter the onus shifts again on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and at that stage complainant is required to lead the evidence. By considering the said judgment also, the trial Court has taken a note of Ex.P6- bank statement which is discussed in detail in paragraph No.20 of the judgment that statement of account shows that the complainant had sufficient amount in his bank account as on the date of advancement of amount to the

HC-KAR

accused. Further, the trial Court also taken note of the evidence of P.W.1. Having considered all these material, come to the conclusion that complainant has proved his case and the appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record, particularly taking note of the evidence discussed in paragraph Nos.57,58 and 59 of its judgment for having drawn the money from the bank and given the same to the accused. The said amount was drawn on 03.06.2016 and the complainant has paid the amount on 13.06.2016 in total to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- each and also in the presence of PW2, amount was lent and the same is taken note of by the appellate Court.

7. Having considered the reasoning of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and the same is based on material available on record. The complainant proved the case by examining himself as P.W.1 and also examining P.W.2. The defence evidence was also taken note of and so also the admissions on the part of D.W.1

HC-KAR

while disposing of the same. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and condone the delay of 40 days and also the suspension of sentence. The scope of revision is very limited and this Court has to examine its legality and correctness of the judgment of both the courts. However, both the Courts have given well reasoning and even the aspect of defence was also considered while passing the order. Therefore, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed and consequently interlocutory applications are rejected.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22