LAWS(KAR)-2017-5-55

GOPAL RAO Vs. MANAGER

Decided On May 29, 2017
GOPAL RAO Appellant
V/S
MANAGER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the accused petitioner by assailing the judgment passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga in Criminal Appeal No.54/2010 dated 23.07.2011, whereunder, the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gulbarga in C.C.No.1302/2006 dated 17.5.2007 was came to be confirmed by dismissing the appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as per the complaint are that, complainant Krishna Grameena Bank is dealing with accepting the deposits from the public and lending loan to the needy persons. It is the further case of the complainant that accused being the businessman doing the business in suit case at Gulbarga has availed a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only), cash credit. The complainant Bank sanctioned the said loan on 23.4.2004 with a condition that loan is renewable within a period of one year. Since accused failed to repay the said loan amount, complainant requested the accused to repay the same and on 10.11.2005 complainant met the accused and made a request to repay the said loan amount. At that time, the accused issued a cheque bearing No230784 dated 21.11.2005 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Super Market Branch, Gulbarga, for a sum of Rs.4,53,773/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty three thousand seven hundred and seventy three only). It is further case of the complainant that when the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned unpaid with an endorsement 'insufficient funds' on 21.11.2005. When the said fact was intimated to the accused, the accused requested the complainant for some more time and requested to present the said cheque for collection with an assurance that he will arrange for repayment of the said loan amount with interest. Accordingly, complainant presented the cheque for collection on 21.12.2005. Again the said cheque returned unpaid with a shara 'insufficient funds' and the State Bank of Hyderabad issued an endorsement to that effect. It is further alleged in the complaint that the complainant Bank issued a legal notice dated 4.1.2006 by R.P.A.D. The said cover returned with an endorsement that the address found incorrect. It is the further case of the complainant that the said notice was also served through his Field Officer personally to the son of the accused and the son of the accused took the notice on 18.01.2006 by signing the same. But, subsequently accused failed to repay the said loan amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the demand notice. As such, the complaint was filed.

(3.) After filing of the complaint summons was issued to the accused. Accused appeared through his counsel and after hearing both the sides the plea of the accused was recorded and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such complainant got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17 and after closure of the evidence of complainant the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, accused got examined himself as DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 and D2.