BY

II

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARI IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5/2018 DATED 31/10/2019 AND THE

JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 06/01/2018 PASSED IN CC

NO.1024/2016 (OLD CC. NO.922/2008) ON THE FILE OF I

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION WITH COSTS.

- 4 -

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR

ORDER

ON

22.11.2022,

THIS

DAY,

,COURT

PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

These criminal revision petitions are connected together

for disposal as the accused and the complainant are same in all

the three cases.

2.

The parties are henceforth referred to as per their

ranking in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3.

Brief facts of the case;

The complainant was doing business of iron, steel and

cement under the name and style as M/s. Shri Balaji Steel

Traders. The accused was doing business with the complainant

and he maintained a running account with the complainant.

The accused in acquaintance with the complainant, had

purchased steel and cement on 31.03.2008 to 21.05.2008 for a

sum of Rs.5,45,003/- and also availed a loan of Rs.20,000/- in

respect of the said transaction. The accused had issued three

cheques drawn on Corporation Bank, Ballari, in favor of the

complainant for a sum of Rs.2,65,000/- dated 28.03.2008,

- 5 -

Rs,80,000/-

dated

07.05.2008

and

Rs.2,00,000/-

dated

10.06.2008 respectively.

In Crl.RP. No.100025/2020

4.

The complainant presented a cheque bearing

No.309204 dated 28.03.2008 for a sum of Rs.2,65,000/-

through his banker for encashment. The said cheque was

returned on 01.08.2008 as <funds insufficient=. A notice was

issued to the accused on 14.08.2008 through R.P.A.D. The

accused received the notice, but, neither repaid the amount nor

replied the notice. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint

on 22.09.2008.

In Crl.RP. No.100026/2020

5.

A cheque bearing it9s No.312501 for a sum of

Rs.80,000/- dated 17.05.2008 was also presented to the bank

for encashment. But, this cheque returned with a shara as

<funds insufficient= on 30.07.2008. Notice was issued to the

accused on 14.08.2008 and the said notice was served to him.

But, he did not reply the same. Hence, a complaint came to be

filed on 22.09.2008.

- 6 -

In Crl.RP. No.100024/2020

6.

In this case, the complainant presented a cheque

bearing its No.325798 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- dated

10.06.2008 for encashment. He received an endorsement

dated 04.08.2008 as <funds insufficient=. Notice was issued on

14.08.2008 and the said notice was served to him. But, he did

not reply the same. Hence, a complaint came to be filed on

21.09.2008.

7.

In all the three cases, the complainant examined 2

witnesses i.e., PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.22. On the other hand, the defence has not led any

evidence in support of its contention.

8.

The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Being aggrieved

by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by

the Trial Court in all the three cases, the accused preferred an

appeal to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court confirmed

the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court.

- 7 -

9.

Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of

conviction recorded by both the Courts, the accused preferred

these criminal revision petitions before this Court seeking to set

aside the conviction passed in all the three cases.

10.

Heard Smt. V. Vidya, the learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri. Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel for

the respondent.

11.

Smt. V. Vidya, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial

Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court are contrary to the

facts and the law. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

12.

It is further submitted that, the Trial Court acted

upon

the

legal

presumption.

However,

the

said

legal

presumption is a rebuttable. Even though the accused during

cross-examination has r