Revision petitioner/accused feeling aggrieved by the

judgment of first Appellate Court on the file of I Addl. District

and Sessions Judge, U.K., Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, in

Crl.A.No.74/2014 dated 26.07.2017, preferred this revision

petition.

2.

Parties to the revision petition are referred with

their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of

convenience.

3.

The

factual

matrix

leading

to

the

case

of

complainant can be stated in nutshell to the effect that accused

is customer of complainant-finance and availed loan facility

from the said finance. Accused for lawful discharge of debt

issued cheque bearing No.270491 dated 27.10.2010 drawn on

account maintained by him in KDCC Bank, Haliyal, under

account No.102. Complainant presented the said cheque for

encashment through his banker Corporation Bank, Haliyal and

- 3 -

the same was returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'

dated 01.12.2010. Complainant issued demand notice dated

03.12.2010. The same is duly served to accused on

04.12.2010. Accused inspite of service of demand notice has

neither replied to the notice nor paid the amount as called upon

in the demand notice. Therefore, complaint is filed on

05.01.2011 for taking appropriate legal action against accused

for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I.Act').

4.

In response to summons, accused appeared and

contested the case. Complainant to prove his case relied on

the evidence of PW-1 and the documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13.

5.

On closure of evidence of complainant's side,

statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. came to

be recorded. Accused denied all incriminating material

evidence appearing against him and claimed that false case is

filed. The accused relied on his own evidence DW-1 and the

document Ex.D.1. The trial Court after appreciation of

evidence on record has convicted accused for the offence under

Section 138 of the N.I.Act and imposed sentence as per order

of sentence.

- 4 -

6.

Accused challenged the said judgment of conviction

and order of sentence before first Appellate Court on the file of

I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, U.K., Karwad, sitting at

Sirsi, in Crl.A.No.74/2014. The first Appellate Court after re-

appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal

and confirmed judgment of trial Court.

7.

Revision petitioner-accused challenging concurrent

finding of both the Courts below contended that cheque in

question Ex.P.1 was not issued for lawful discharge of debt. The

complainant-finance has taken blank cheque as surety and

even after clearance of the entire loan amount, cheque was

misused and false case is filed. The Courts below without

appreciating the said fact merely on the admitted fact of

issuance of cheque with signature of accused on the account

maintained by him has proceeded to hold that accused is guilty

of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The approach

and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by both the

Courts below are contrary to law and evidence on record and

the findings recorded cannot be legally sustained. Therefore,

prayed for allowing the revision petition and to set aside the

judgment of both Courts below. Consequently, to acquit the

accused from the accusation levelled against him.

- 5 -

8.

In response to notice, respondent appeared through

learned counsel.

9.

Heard the arguments of both sides.

10. On careful perusal of material evidence placed on

record, it would got to show that accused has borrowed loan of

Rs.50,000/- from complainant -finance. Accused to repay the

balance

amount

issued

cheque

for

Rs.37,000/-

dated

27.10.2010 Ex.P.1. On presentation of cheque for collection

through the banker of complainant, Corporation Bank, same

was dishonoured vide bank endorsement Ex.p.2 as 'insufficient

funds'. Complainant issued demand notice on 03.02.2010

Ex.P.3 and the same is duly served to accused vide postal

acknowledgement card Ex.P.4