C.R. MAHADEVAPPA Vs. C. LOKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is by the accused being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence dated 05.10.2010 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Chitradurga, dismissing criminal appeal No. 94/2008 and confirming the judgment and sentence dated 9.9.2008 passed in C.C. No. 410/2006.

(2.) THE revision petitioner is challenging the correctness and validity of the judgment and orders of the courts below on the grounds as mentioned at grounds No. 7 to 14 in the revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the petitioner -accused has not borrowed the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/ - as alleged by the complainant and he has not issued cheque in favour of the complainant. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that there was a transaction between one Mokshapathi and the revision petitioner -accused and in that connection, the petitioner accused issued a cheque in favour of Mokshapathi. But subsequently, taking undue advantage that the complainant was serving under him, Mokshapathi got filed a private complaint through the complainant of this case. The complainant was not having financial capacity to advance Rs. 4,50,000/ - to the accused in this case. It is submitted that the some proceedings were taken place and the accused has produced those documents as per Exs. D. 1 to D. 5. After these documents were produced before the first appellate court, they were sent back to the trial court and after recording the evidence by the trial court, again the matter was sent to the first appellate court. Looking to the documents produced by the accused as per Exs. D. 1 to D. 5, they clearly go to show that the complainant has filed a false complaint though no such transaction has taken place between them. The learned counsel further submitted that even there was statutory initial presumption in favour of the complainant as per Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the accused by placing materials by way of documents, rebutted the presumption. So far as the defence of accused is concerned, preponderance of probability is sufficient and he need not prove beyond reasonable doubt just like any other criminal cases. He submitted that in view of these materials, revision petition is to be allowed or it may be remanded back to trial court for fresh disposal.