Smt. Janet D'Souza vs No.13756, Sri Venkateshwara ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6027 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.237/2020

BETWEEN:

SMT. JANET D'SOUZA
W/O SOMANNA C.P.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S.D.A., KODAGU ZILLA PANCHAYATH
MADIKERI-571 201
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.19/42
STEWART HILL ROAD
MADIKERI-571201.                            ... PETITIONER

           (BY SRI SOMASHEKARA K.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:

NO.13756, SRI VENKATESHWARA
CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (R)
HEAD OFFICE AT SULLIA
D.K.BRANCH, KOHINOOR ROAD
MADIKERI-571 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER
SRI ASHOK B.,
SON OF LATE ANANDA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
MANDEKOLU VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574239                        ... RESPONDENT

            (BY SRI M.R.BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
                                  2




     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC., MADIKERI DATED 14.03.2019 IN C.C.NO.274/2017 AND
THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2019 PASSED BY THE
PRL.SESSIONS     JUDGE,     KODAGU,      MADIKERI    IN
CRL.A.NO.14/2019, CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE REVISION
PETITION FROM THE CHARGES LEVELLED AGAINST HIM.

    THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

This matter is listed for admission.

2. The case of the respondent/complainant before the

Trial Court is that this petitioner has approached the complainant

on 07.09.2015 for an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs. Rs.2 Lakhs was

sanctioned and he had agreed to repay the amount with interest

at 14% per annum and penal interest at the rate of 3% per

annum and monthly installment was Rs.5,600/-. The said

amount has been credited to the account of the petitioner herein

and in turn he had executed a promissory note on 06.10.2015

and also he has issued the cheque. The subject matter of the

cheque for a sum of Rs.51,800/- dated 6.08.2016. When the

same was presented, it was returned with an endorsement as

'unpaid'. Thereafter, he has issued one more cheque dated

02.09.2016 for a sum of Rs.82,225/-; when the same was

presented for encashment, it was returned with an endorsement

as 'funds insufficient'. A legal notice was issued, duly served and

he failed to give any reply. Hence, a complaint was filed and the

Trial Court took the cognizance and secured the accused. The

complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the

documents as Exs.P1 to P10. The complainant has not been

cross-examined and this petitioner has not led any defense

evidence. Hence, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner and

sentenced to pay an amount of Rs.89,225/-. In default to pay

the fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of six months. The same has been questioned before

the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.14/2019. The Appellate Court on

re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on

record confirmed the judgment of conviction and order on

sentence. Hence, the present Revision Petition is filed before the

Court.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner before this Court is that both the

Courts have committed an error in accepting the evidence of

P.W.1. The petitioner has raised several grounds before the

Appellate Court but mechanically dismissed the appeal without

appreciating the facts. The petitioner has repaid the entire loan

amount to the complainant, but they have misused the cheque

issued by the petitioner at the time of granting the loan and

there is no legally recoverable debt.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and on perusal of the material available on record, the record

discloses that P.W.1 re-iterated the contents of the complaint

and his evidence is unchallenged. The very ground urged before

this Court is that the petitioner has paid the amount. In order to

substantiate the same, no document is placed before the Trial

Court. First of all no cross-examination. Apart from that, no

rebuttal evidence also. When such being the factual aspects of

the case, when the defense is not set out before the Trial Court

to cross-examine P.W.1 and also no rebuttal evidence; apart

from that, no reply was given to the legal notice. If really, the

petitioner has repaid the amount as contended, he would have

produced the documents for having paid the amount. The

complainant is also the co-operative Society and they have to

maintain the accounts for the loan transaction and ought to have

summoned the document before the Trial Court and the same

has not been done. The petitioner ought to have placed the

document for having paid the amount and nothing is placed on

record. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision

petition and in the absence of any defense as well as the rebuttal

evidence before the Trial Court, the question of admitting the

revision petition does not arise.

5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cp*