The finding in a criminal proceeding regarding the loan amount must be accepted in subsequent civil recovery proceedings. Any sum ordered to be paid as fine in a criminal proceeding must be taken into account in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter.

JUDGMENT

N.S. Sanjay Gowda, J. - The appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial question of law. "Whether the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were justified in directing recovery of the loan amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest in the light of the finding recorded by this Court in CrRP No.2204/2010 (Ex D-4) that the appellant had borrowed only a sum of Rs.3,000/- as loan?

2. The respondent though served has chosen to remain absent.

3. By consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

4. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit contending that it had lent a sum of Rs.15,000/- as a loan to defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 had stood as guarantors to the said loan. It was stated that defendant No.1 had issued a cheque bearing No.783123 for a sum of Rs.15,000/-, which had been dishonoured, which had resulted in filing of a criminal case in C.C.No.3126/2000 in which the defendant No.1 had in fact been convicted.

5. It was also stated that defendant No.3 being the guarantor had also issued another cheque bearing No.591782 for a sum of Rs.16,000/- and since that had also bounced, another criminal case in C.C.No.3128/2000 had been filed.

6. It was also stated that in respect of the loan given on 04.10.1999, the defendants had given acknowledgements of their debt on 14.01.2003 and 21.07.2005 and since the defendants had failed to repay the loan amount despite issuance of a legal notice, they were constrained to file the suit on 15.06.2007.

7. The said suit was contested by defendants Nos.1 and 2. The defendant No.3 did not file any written statement.

8. The defendant No.1 denied the entire loan transaction. He however did admit that a criminal proceeding in C.C.No.3126/2000 had been initiated against him and the same had ended in his conviction and against the said conviction, he had filed an appeal which was pending.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that it was not in dispute that ultimately the matter came up to this Court by way of a Criminal Revision Petition No.2204/2010. He stated in the said Revision, this Court had clearly and categorically held that a loan of only Rs.3,000/- had been taken by him and the High Court had ordered that the plaintiff be paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- be paid as a Fine to the State.

10. He stated that since the plaintiff No.1 had deposited the entire sum of Rs.11,000/-, as ordered in CrRP No.2204/2010, the plaintiff was not entitled to any further sum in the present proceedings.

11. The Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had proved that defendants had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- and the defendants had failed to repay the said sum. The Trial Court also came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to pay interest @ 21% as claimed by the plaintiff and it accordingly proceeded to decree the suit for a sum of Rs.41,397/- along with interest @ 21% from the date of the suit.

12. The defendants, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal.

13. In appeal, the defendants once again reiterated the very same contention advanced by them in the suit, i.e., in the light of the finding recorded by this Court in Crl.RP No.2204/2010, that the defendant No.1 had only borrowed a sum of Rs.3,000/-, the Trial Court was in error in decreeing the suit. It was also contended that since the defendant No.1 had complied with the directions passed in Crl.RP No.2204/2010 and deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. The decree of the Trial Court directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.41,397/- along with interest was not sustainable.

14. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the defendants could not take advantage of the judgment passed in their favour in the Revision arising out of the proceedings that had been initiated against them under Section 138 of N.I.Act. It observed that the remedy to file a suit for recovery in a civil Court and the