Karnataka High Court
B L Abhinay vs H Annaiah on 28 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8875
CRL.RP No. 450 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 450 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. B.L. ABHINAY
S/O B.D.LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT D1, RAMANAHALLI POLICE QUARTERS
RAMANAHALLI
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIKAS M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. H. ANNAIAH
S/O HARI RAO
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
Digitally signed R/AT GIRINAGARA NEW EXTENSION
by DEVIKA M RAMANAHALLI
Location: HIGH CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577101.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.S. GANESHA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
DATED 29.10.2021 IN CRL.A.NO.151/2020 ON THE FILE OF II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU AND ALSO JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION
ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 19.03.2020 PASSED IN
C.C.NO.897/2019 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND C.J.M., CHIKKAMAGALURU.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8875
CRL.RP No. 450 of 2022
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This revision petition is filed against the finding
of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that the
revision petitioner had availed loan of Rs.1,95,000/- an
also considering the answer elicited from the mouth of
PW1 even the deduction of Rs.69,600/- and convicted the
petitioner for an amount of Rs.1,25,400/-. The First
Appellate Court on re-assessing the material on record,
comes to the conclusion that Trial Court taken note of
answer elicited from the mouth of the PW1 and confirmed
the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the
judgment and First Appellate Court, the present revision
petition is filed before this Court. The main contention of
the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
vehemently contend that there is an admission on the part
NC: 2025:KHC:8875
of PW1 during the course of cross-examination that
transaction between the defendant and accused except
these two transaction of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.85,000/-
there was no any transaction and also when the answer
was elicited from the mouth of PW1 for having received
the amount of Rs.69,600/-, though the same is given
deduction in the finding, the very specific case of the
petitioner that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.60,000/-
only and repaid the same with interest in total to the tune
of Rs.69,600/- and also counsel would contend that when
the answer was elicited from the mouth of PW1 regarding
payment of Rs.69,600/- and he says the same is in
respect of different transaction and when he has given
only the two transaction for Rs.1,95,000/- and the very
contention that the said amount of Rs.69,600/- was paid
towards Rs.60,000/- has availed loan is very clear that
only loan transaction was Rs.60,000/-, not more than that
and the same has not been considered by the Trial Court
as well as the First Appellate Court and committed an
NC: 2025:KHC:8875
error in accepting the document of Ex.P1-Cheque for an
amount of Rs.1,95,000/-.
3. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the
respondent would vehemently contend that both the
Courts taken note of the document of Cheque and
admitted the signature available in Cheque -Ex.P1 and
also taken note of discussion made in paragraph No.17 of
the Trial Court order, even deduction of Rs.69,600/-
having received and the same was acknowledged and also
taken note of when the notice was issued and the same
was served, he has not given any reply and if really knows
the very transaction of Rs.1,95,000/- as contended by the
petitioner, ought to have given the reply and no such reply
was given and only false defense was taken during the
cross-examination that he has availed only Rs.60,000/-
and not availed the loan of Rs.1,95,000/-.
4. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court
discussion made by the First Appellate Court in paragraph
Nos.11 and 13 to 15 and re-assessed the material and
NC: 2025:KHC:8875
when there was an admission for having received the
Cheque for an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- and he had given
the deduction and the same is discussed in paragraph
No.16 also. The very contention of the petitioner's counsel
that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court committed an
error cannot be accepted and both the Courts have given
the finding and the answer elicited from the mouth of
PW1. The counsel also would submits that with regard to
the availing of Rs.60,000/-, no defense evidence has been
elicited except the answer elicited from the mouth of PW1
for having paid the amount and ought to have rebutted
the evidence of complainant by adducing evidence if really
he had availed loan only for Rs.60,000/- and no such
defense evidence is placed.
5. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and also
the counsel appearing for the respondent and also
considering the material on record, the point that would
arise for consideration of this Court are:
NC: 2025:KHC:8875
1) Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate
Court committed an error in convicting
and sentencing the petitioner and
confirming the order and whether it
requires interference of this Court by
exercising the revisional jurisdiction?
2) What Order?
6. Having considered the grounds urged by the
revision petitioner's counsel and also the counsel for the
respondent and also on perusal of material on record, it is
not in dispute that Cheque-Ex.P1 was issued by the
petitioner and also not disputes the same. No doubt in the
cross-examination counsel brought to notice of this Court
having paid an amount of Rs.1,95,000/-. There is an
admission on the part of PW1 and also there is an
admission on the part with regard to payment of
Rs.69,600/-. The defense of the petitioner is that he had
received only an amount of Rs.60,000/- and not an
amount of Rs.1,95,000/-. In order to substantiate his
contention that having received only an amount
Rs.60,000/-, no material is placed and there is an
NC: 2025:KHC:8875
admission for having issued the Cheque. Apart from that
when the defense was taken that he had only received
Rs.60,000/- and he did not enter into the witness box. In
order to substantiate his contention that he had received
only Rs.60,000/- no material is placed and no doubt he
had repaid the amount of Rs.69,600/- and there is an
admission, but only his contention that he has paid the
amount of Rs.60,000/- with interest in total Rs.69,600/-
and same was also taken note of by the Trial Court as well
as the First Appellate Court and those case was filed for an
amount of Rs.1,95,000/- after deducting the amount what
the admission was given by the PW1 and the same is
considered both by the Trial Court as well as by the First
Appellate Court and after deducting the same only allowed
the complaint partly. I have already pointed out that if
really he availed the loan of Rs.60,000/- only and when
the notice was served on him, immediately he would have
given the reply stating that he had received only an
amount of Rs.60,000/- and not Rs.1,95,000/- and he kept
quite when the notice was served and when the defense
NC: 2025:KHC:8875
was set-out, he has only availed Rs.60,000/-, no plausible
evidence is placed before the Court having received only
an amount of Rs.60,000/-, but the fact that Cheque was
issued and admitted the signature is not in dispute and
what made him to execute a Cheque for an amount
Rs.1,95,000/-, no explanation is given by the petitioner
and when such being the case, no plausible evidence is
placed before the Court with regard to his defense is
concerned and also not lead any defense evidence before
the Trial Court and when both the Courts accepted the
evidence of PW1 regarding payment of part amount and
after deducting the same only given the finding. Hence, I
do not find any error committed by the Trial Court as well
as the First Appellate Court in appreciating the evidence
and there is no any perversity in finding. Though counsel
brought to notice of this Court, an admission that except
these two transaction, but the fact that he had repaid an
amount of Rs.69,600/- is not in dispute. The counsel also
brought to notice of this Court that in respect of filing of
complaint against Rs.1,45,000/- against one Mr.Sathish
NC: 2025:KHC:8875
and having compromised the same for an amount of
Rs.60,000/- also to be taken note of. Merely because there
is an admission in respect of other case is concerned and
the contention of the petitioner's counsel cannot be
accepted and when the Cheque was issued in terms of
Ex.P1 and presumption could be drawn. There is no
dispute with regard to presumption is rebuttable
presumption, but no rebuttable evidence is placed before
the Court except the eliciting the answer of repayment to
the tune of Rs.69,600/- and the same is also considered
by the Trial Court. The Trial Court and First Appellate
Court also given the reasoning that there was no any reply
when the notice was served and defense was taken only
after thought. With regard to the availing of loan for an
amount Rs.60,000/- no plausible evidence is placed. In the
absence of any preponderance of probabilities, contention
of the petitioner's counsel cannot be accepted. Hence, I do
not find any error in passing an order and admission to the
effect that payment was made also given deduction and no
perverse finding by Trial Court and First Appellate Court.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8875
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
