1.

This revision petition is filed by the accused

under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

22.09.2018 passed by the Court of Small Causes and XXVI

ACMM, Bengaluru, in CC No.15892/2017 and confirmed by

the LII Additional City and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in

Criminal

Appeal

No.2110/2018

vide

judgment

dated

30.08.2019.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred as per the original ranks occupied by them

before the trial Court.

3

3.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

that, the complainant-Sri. Srinivasa and accused-Sri.

Chikkanna are neighbourers. The accused approached the

complainant during the 4^th week of September 2016 seeking

financial assistance of Rs.3.00 Lakhs for his urgent personal

requirements and in that regard, the accused issued a

post-dated cheque for Rs.3.00 Lakhs and when the

complainant presented the said cheque for encashment, it

was bounced for ‘Insufficient Funds’. The complainant then

got issued a legal notice, which is served on the accused.

The accused did not respond to the legal notice. Hence, the

complainant lodged a complaint.

4.

On the basis of the complaint, the learned

Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued process against

the accused. The accused appeared through his counsel

and was enlarged on bail. He has also denied the

accusation.

5.

Before the trial Court, the complainant was

examined as PW.1 and he placed reliance on Nine

4

documents marked at Exs.P1 to P9. After conclusion of the

evidence of the complainant, the statement of accused

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable the

accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing

against him in the case of complainant. The case of

accused is of total denial. The accused himself has got

examined as DW.1 and he has also placed reliance on

Exs.D1 to D4.

6.

Having

heard

the

arguments

and

after

appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the

learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 ( ‘N.I. Act’ for short) by imposing

fine of Rs.3,30,000/- with default clause of six months of

Simple Imprisonment. Being aggrieved by this judgment of

conviction and order of sentence, the accused has filed an

appeal on the file of the LII City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru, in Crl.A. No.2110/2018. The learned Sessions

Judge after re-appreciating the oral and documentary

evidence, has dismissed the appeal by confirming the

5

judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being

aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the petitioner is

before this Court by way of this revision petition.

7.

Heard arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the

respondent. Perused the records.

8.

Learned

counsel

for

the

revision

petitioner/accused would contend that the complainant has

not pleaded as to how and on which date the loan was

advanced and in the evidence, it is asserted that, it was

paid on 24.09.2016. He would contend that, since the

accused has disputed the financial status of the complainant

to advance such a huge amount and considering his cross-

examination, it is evident that the complainant has no

financial capacity to advance the such a huge loan and the

defence raised by the accused becomes more probable. He

would also contend that, Ex.P9 (Statement of Account) does

not assist, as it is not pertaining to the alleged date of

advancement of loan and the source of funds is not

6

disclosed by the complainant Hence, he would contend that

the defence of the accused is more probable regarding

availment of loan of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.35,000/-, and

hence he would contend that, both the courts below have

not properly appreciated the oral

and documentary

evidence in proper perspective. Hence, he would contend

that the revision needs to be allowed by setting aside the

impugned judgment of conviction