ORAL ORDER

This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 31.10.2018 passed in C.C.No.244/2015 and the judgment and order dated 31.10.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.111/2018.

2. This petition is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in not considering the documentary evidence for having made the payment of Rs.1,30,000/-. It is the specific case of the petitioner/accused is that he had borrowed only Rs.1,30,000/- and he has repaid the said amount and the same is evident from the records at Ex.D1 and D2. The counsel also would vehemently contend that PW1 categorically admitted in the cross-examination that except this transaction, there is no other transaction between the petitioner and the respondent and inspite of the said defence, the Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that evidence of DW1 corroborates the case of the complainant that the accused is in the habit of issuing Cheques without sufficient funds in the account which is the main ingredient to attract Section 138 of N.I. Act and did not accept the defence of the petitioner. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the accused from his own evidence has failed to rebut the presumption even by preponderance of probabilities and the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous and committed an error in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court also failed to take note of the material available on record even though discussed the evidence of PW1 wherein PW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that it was the only transaction he had, cannot be read in isolation and this stray admission cannot be misused by the accused/appellant nor it rebuts the legal presumption available under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The very reasoning given by the First Appellate Court is also erroneous. The counsel also would vehemently contend that when the material evidence available before both the Courts, both the Courts have committed an error in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, this Court can interfere with the finding of both the Courts exercising the revisional jurisdiction since the very observations made by both the Courts are erroneous.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant would vehemently contend that the Court has to take note of the evidence DW1 wherein he categorically admitted in the cross-examination that he had started the transaction in terms of Ex.C1 in the year 2012-2013 and account is also is in existence and he cannot tell how many Cheques he has given and how many Cheques are dishonoured and also categorically admits that some of the Cheques were dishonoured and also he admitted that he had maintained two accounts in Karnataka Bank. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the suggestion made to DW1 that Ex.D1 and D2 are in respect of earlier transaction between the parties to the case and not in respect of repayment of the loan amount and hence, both the Courts have considered the material available on record in a proper perspective and hence, it doesn’t require any interference.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:

1. Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed an error in appreciating the material available on record and the finding of both the Courts are against the material available on record and whether this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction?

2. What Order?

Point No.1:

6. Having heard the