CHANDRAPPA Vs. J H LOKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused challenging the Judgment of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere ('First Appellate Court' for short) in Criminal Appeal No.28/2002 dated 11.6.2014, whereunder the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the JMFC, Jagalur ('trial Court' for short) in C.C. No.27/2009-dated 1.1.2012 was confirmed.

(2.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts below without proper appreciation of the evidence on record, only on assumptions and presumptions have come to the wrong conclusion and have convicted the petitioner-accused. He further submitted that notice issued to the petitioner-accused is not in accordance with law and no notice has been served on him. He further submitted that the respondent-complainant has not led any evidence to prove that he has got capacity to pay the amount to the petitioner-accused. He further submitted that he has not been given any opportunity to rebut the presumption which has been drawn as against him. On these grounds, he prayed to set-aside the impugned Judgment of the First Appellate Court and consequently, set-aside the order of the trial Court and acquit the petitioner-accused.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondentcomplainant vehemently argued and submitted that during the course of cross-examination many suggestions have been made whenceunder the petitioner-accused has admitted his signature on the cheque Ex.P1. The said admission clearly goes to show that the cheque bears his signature. The Court below has drawn the presumption as contemplated under the law and the petitioner-accused has not rebutted the said presumption. By taking into consideration the said aspect, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have come to the right conclusion and have convicted the petitioner-accused. He further submitted that Exs.P7 to P10, RTC extracts produced by the complainant clearly go to show that he was financially sound as he being the landlord and owning 12 acres of land. He further submitted that earlier the petitioneraccused used to do financial business and for the said purpose, he took the amount from the respondentcomplainant and thereafter, he has not paid the amount and in consonance with the same, the petitioneraccused issued a cheque-Ex.P1 and when it was presented, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement 'no sufficient funds' and subsequently, notice has also been issued, when petitioner-accused not responded to the notice and not paid the amount due, the respondent-complainant filed the compliant. The trial Court after considering the evidence and materials placed on record has rightly convicted the petitioner-accused. The petitioner-accused has not made out any good grounds to allow the petition. He further submitted that sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner-accused to lead his evidence, inspite of that he has not led any evidence. On these ground he prayed to dismiss the petition.