DEVRAJ H M Vs. KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed by the accused-petitioner challenging the judgment passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur in Crl.A.No.203/2013 dated 27.06.2014 where under the judgment of II Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Chikmagalur in C.C.No.631/2010 dated 13.06.2013 is confirmed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not present. Even as could be seen from the order sheet dated 14.08.2017, 25.06.2018, 13.02.2019, 14.06.2019 and 11.07.2019, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not appeared. Since the criminal revision petition cannot be dismissed for default, the same is taken on merits and disposed of by this judgment.

(3.) Facts of the case are that accused borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- for his urgent necessity and for repayment of the said amount, he issued a cheque bearing No.166024 dated 30.07.2009 drawn on Corporation Bank, Magadi Road, Bengaluru and when the said cheque was presented for honouring, it returned with a shara "Funds Insufficient" dated 16.10.2009. Thereafter the same was informed to the accused and again accused requested the complainant to present the said cheque once again in the month of January 2010 and again the said cheque was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant has got issued a legal notice on 03.02.2010 through RPAD. It was returned with postal shara as "refused" and thereafter, there was no reply by the accused. As contemplated under the law, the complainant filed the complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). Thereafter, the Court below took cognizance and issued summons to the accused. Accused appeared his plea was recorded, he pleaded not guilty, thereafter, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked six documents as Exs.P1 to P6. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and he got examined himself as DW.1 and got marked one document as Ex.D1. After hearing both the sides, the Court below convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- and out of the fine amount Rs.40,000/- is ordered to be given to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.