TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said offence by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 5-12-2011. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred a Criminal Appeal in the learned Sessions Judge, I Fast Track Court at Shimoga, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Sessions Judge's Court") in Criminal Appeal No. 927/2011. The appeal was contested by the respondent who was the complainant in the Trial Court. The Sessions Judge's Court in its order dated 27-06-2012, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court dated 5-12-2011 in C.C. No. 198/2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the accused has preferred this revision petition. 2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent are physically present in the Court. 4. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court, including the Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. 6. After hearing the learned counsel from both side, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is: Whether the judgments under revision are perverse, illegal and erroneous warranting interference at the hands of this Court? 7. Though this matter was listed at the stage of orders and parties had taken adjournment for reporting the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sting at exhibit P.10. Statement of PW.1 made in his examination-in-chief could not be shakened in his cross-examination substantially. Though the accused also got himself examined as DW.1, his defence taken in his examination-in-chief was that the cheque in question was given by him to one Smt. Laxmamma as a security in a loan transaction, however, the said cheque was misused by the complainant. The said Smt. Laxmamma herself has stated to the accused that those two cheques were given to PW.1. The said PW.1 through his wife has got the false case lodged against him. However, the said defence taken by the accused was denied in the cross-examination of PW.1. Thus, it is after proper analysis of the evidence placed before them, both the Tria....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contention of the complainant that out of Rs. 95,000/-, it was Rs. 50,000/- alone which was paid in cheque and remaining Rs. 45,000/- was in cash. Admittedly, there are no documents about the alleged cash transaction. However, the cheque amount is only for a sum of Rs. 95,000/- and the accused by entering the witness box by himself and producing an alleged sale agreement which is at exhibit D.1, has attempted to rebut the presumption and taken a defence that the said cheque was not at all issued to the complainant. He has also categorically denied the receipt of the alleged advance of Rs. 95,000/- from the complainant. In such circumstances, though the accused has attempted to rebut the presumption formed in favour of the complainant and ....