Karnataka High Court

Mr Shridhar U vs Smt T Kalaivani on 26 March, 2025

                                                -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC:12810
                                                        CRL.RP No. 959 of 2017



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                              BEFORE

                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                          CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 959 OF 2017

                      BETWEEN:

                         MR. SHRIDHAR U
                         AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
                         S/O SRI. BABU
                         R/AT # 1-21-1636
                         WIRELESS COMPOUND
                         ASHOKNAGAR, URVA,
                         MANGALORE - 575 006
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. H MALATESH, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                         SMT. T. KALAIVANI
                         AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
                         W/O THILAGAR,
                         R/A KIRAN KUTIR, KARKARI NIVAS,
Digitally signed by
MAYAGAIAH                WIRELESS COMPOUND
VINUTHA                  ASHOK NAGAR, URVA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                 MANGALORE - 575 006
KARNATAKA                                                         ...RESPONDENT

                      (BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE)

                           THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C
                      PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
                      DATED 29.1.2016 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C.-V, MANGALURU IN
                      C.C.NO.70/2015 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
                      16.8.2017 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
                      SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.58/2016.

                          THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
                      ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:12810
                                        CRL.RP No. 959 of 2017



CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                         ORAL ORDER

This revision petition is directed against the judgment

passed in Crl.A.No.58/2016 dated 16.08.2017 by the IV

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore (hereinafter

referred to as 'the learned Sessions Judge' for short), whereby

the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the

petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence passed in C.C.No.70/2015 dated 29.01.2016 by the

JMFC, V Court, Mangalore, D.K.,

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. The abridged facts of the case are as under:

The accused obtained hand loan of Rs.50,000/- from the

complainant and thereafter failed to repay the said loan amount

and as per the request of the complainant, the accused issued

a cheque bearing No.2252 dated 10.11.2014 for the said

amount. The said cheque was presented by the complainant for

encashment. However, the same was dishonored with an

endorsement 'No sufficient balance in the drawee's account'.

This was informed by the complainant to the accused. Despite,

NC: 2025:KHC:12810

he failed to repay the loan amount. As such, the complainant

issued a legal notice dated 04.12.2014 calling upon the accused

to repay the loan amount. Though the said legal notice was

served upon the accused, he failed to repay the loan amount.

Hence, left with no other option, the complainant filed a private

complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the learned

Magistrate for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act').

4. In order to prove her case before the Trial Court,

the complainant examined herself as PW.1 and marked 8

documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The accused also examined himself

as DW.1, however, he failed to mark any document on his

behalf.

5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence,

the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offences

punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and directed him to pay

a fine of Rs.56,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount,

directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six

months.

NC: 2025:KHC:12810

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and

order of sentence, the accused approached the learned

Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.58/2016. After re-appreciation of

the entire evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge

dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the

judgment passed by the Trial Court. Challenge to the same is

lis before this Court.

7. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. Malatesh for

the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri. Cyril Prasad Pais for

the respondent.

8. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel

for the revision petitioner that both the Courts below have

erred while passing the impugned judgments without

appreciating the evidence and documents in right perspective.

He further contended that the accused has categorically

deposed before the Trial Court that he has repaid a sum of

Rs.30,000/- although he had received a loan of Rs.20,000/-.

Further, the complainant failed to place such credible

documents to establish that he paid the loan Rs.50,000/-. In

such circumstances, the Trial Court and the First Appellate

NC: 2025:KHC:12810

Court erred in passing the impugned judgments. Accordingly,

he prays to allow the revision petition.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-

complainant submitted that the transaction in question is

admitted by the accused before the Trial Court. According to

him, he received a hand loan of Rs.20,000/- instead of

Rs.50,000/-. Further, the accused failed to place any such

documents for having paid the amount to the complainant and

the accused also failed to reply to the legal notice issued by the

complainant. In such circumstances, the Trial Court and the

First Appellate Court rightly passed the impugned judgments,

which do not call for any interference by this Court.

Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for both the

parties and having given my anxious consideration to the

documents made available before me including the judgments

passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the only

point that arises for my consideration is:

"Whether the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal

NC: 2025:KHC:12810

filed by the revision petitioner by confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court?"

11. As could be gathered from the records, the

complainant and the accused has not seriously disputed the

transaction in question. It is the contention of the accused that

he had received a hand loan of Rs.20,000/- from the

complainant and thereafter, he not only repaid the said loan

amount of Rs.20,000/- but also paid an additional sum of

Rs.10,000/-. Thus, totaling to Rs.30,000/-. It is admitted case

of the accused that the legal notice issued by the complainant

was served on him. In spite of that, he failed to reply to the

said legal notice by placing his defence. As rightly contended by

the learned counsel for the respondent, the accused also failed

to produce any such documentary evidence to substantiate his