CRL.RP/688/2026 of DHANANJAYA M P Vs H B RAMESH on 22 June 2026

JUDGMENT

DATED 30.01.2026 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.169/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU THEREBY DISMISSED THE CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BY CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

HC-KAR

DATED: 01.04.2025 PASSED IN C.C.NO.2456/2010 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE ABOVE PETITION AS PRAYED FOR.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

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

2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that complainant and accused are known to each other. In the month of May, 2009, the accused approached the complainant and borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as hand loan for his legal necessity and also issued post-dated Cheque for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with an assurance that it would be honoured. When the complainant presented the above said Cheque for encashment, same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Immediately, complainant contacted the accused and requested him to pay the said amount and other incidental charges. But, for one or the other reason, accused avoided to comply the same. Hence,

HC-KAR

he got issued the legal notice through RPAD and COP calling upon accused to repay the said Cheque amount within 15 days. Inspite of service of notice, he did not pay the amount. But, RPAD which was sent returned with an endorsement ‘addressee not claimed’. Hence, the same was returned to sender. But notice sent through COP was duly served on the accused on 06.10.2009.

3. The complaint was filed, cognizance was taken and accused did not plead guilty when he was secured. Hence, complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P7 and accused has not led any defence evidence and the only defence which was taken by the accused is that Cheque was given for security and the same is not substantiated. With regard to the said defence is concerned, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and admitted issuance of Cheque and also the other contention that notice was not served.

4. The Trial Court having considered the fact that accused did not dispute the address and the same was also returned with an endorsement ‘addressee not claimed the

HC-KAR

notice and COP was served. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the evidence available on record, particularly in paragraph Nos.17, 18 and 19 taken note of the defence that Cheque was given towards chit transaction also has not been proved and also drawn the presumption and there is no rebuttal evidence and the same is taken note of in paragraph No.19 and confirmed the order of the Trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that both the Courts have committed an error and the Cheque was given as a security to the said chit business and the same was denied. But, the counsel would vehemently contend that the Cheque was given towards chit business and the respondent was running the chit business illegally without obtaining license from the concerned authority. These are the materials not taken note of by both the Courts.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that both the Courts have taken note of defence and the same is not substantiated by adducing any rebuttal evidence. Hence, this Court cannot part with the reasoning of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

HC-KAR

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and considering the factual aspects of the case, it is the specific case of the complainant that he had advanced the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- when the post-dated Cheque was given and the same was dishonoured. The legal notice was issued by COP as well RPAD and COP was served and unserved RPAD cover was returned, that too as ‘not claimed’. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that notice was not served, but in order to prove the factum that he was not residing in the said address, nothing is placed on record and the same is not rebutted by placing any material on record that he was not residing in the said address. When the same is not disputed, there is a presumption under General Clauses Act and the address mentioned in the notice was not rebutted. Apart from that, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that there was a chit transaction and none of the chit member was examined before the Trial Court, in order to substantiate the same and even not entered into the witness box to rebut the evidence of complainant.

HC-KAR

8. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to exercise the revisional powers and also no ground is made out to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59