M.S. SATHYA NARAYANA Vs. LINGARAJE URS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed praying this Court to set aside the order of conviction and sentence dtd. 3/3/2012 passed in C.C.No.1123/2009 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru and also to set aside the order of confirmation of the conviction and sentence dtd. 25/8/2012 passed in Crl.A.No.62/2012 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge at Mysuru and acquit the petitioner.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the complainant/respondent before the Trial Court is that this petitioner/accused had approached the complainant in the month of June, July and August 2008 in order to fulfill his family commitments and to clear hand loans and for such other legal necessities. The complainant has paid Rs.8,00,000.00 on different dates. The accused agreed to repay the said amount with 1% interest per month. When the complainant demanded to pay the money, the accused issued the subject matter of the cheque and the same was dishonoured and notice was issued and no reply was given and hence the complaint was filed and the Trial Court took the cognizance and thereafter the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 8(a). On the other hand, the accused also examined himself as D.W.1 and examined another witness as D.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 3. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the petitioner and directed to pay an amount of Rs.8,25,000.00 as fine. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.62/2012. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in not appreciating the defence set out by the petitioner herein and specific date is not mentioned when the respondent has paid the amount to the petitioner and in whose presence the same has been paid and whether the amount was paid in cash or in different mode. The learned counsel would contend that the petitioner effectively cross-examined the witness with regard to source of income is concerned to advance the amount of Rs.8,00,000.00 and the same is not substantiated and even the payment of amount of Rs.8,00,000.00 was not declared in the income declaration. The learned counsel submits that there was no any relationship between the parties and categorically admitted that one Devraj Urs is the relative of the complainant. It is the specific case that the said Devraj Urs had taken the cheques and the same was misused and he had also filed one more case against the petitioner herein and the cheque which had been taken by Devraj Urs was misused. The learned counsel submits that the complaint was given by the wife of the petitioner stating that cheque was stolen in terms of Ex.D.3 in the year 2007 itself and this aspect has not been considered by both the Courts.