E CRL.A.NO.53i OF 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS ON THE I7'm DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2VOf(:)9. BEFORE J V THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T CRIMINAL APPEAL No.5S1 j'20oi3j 'if " 'V, BETWEEN 'V M H % 2 SI--IRI.M.P.CHANDRASHEKAR I SON OE PUTTAPPA - AGE: MAJOR, _ _ RESIDING OF KANCHUGARA'STP»EE*i?, CHICKMANOALIIR. I I * ' "T-.._...f'APPELLANT (SR1 JAYAV'I;'}iTfi§L._'RAQ__ "3/¢f.'ADVO CATE) SHRIK,D;-MAILECS-OWDA...--~ SON OF"D__4ODDA_ EREGOWDA, AGE-:..MAJOR, COEEEE PLANTER,_ «R}:3SII§I'NG..OF JAYANAGAR, I ,CH1CI§MAGALUR. ' RESPONDENT
“(SR1 H.S’.-IFERZENIVASA MURTHY & NATESH N.R.,
ADVOCATES
..THIS”~€1RL.A EILED U/S. 378(4) CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS
‘ HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
: -:..IUDGEMENT OE ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE ADDL. DIST.
A,ND’S.J., CHIKMAGALUR IN CRL.A.NO.54/O2, DT. 1.1.03,
If
3 CRL.A.NO.53l OF 2003
presented the said cheques for collection, same came to be
dishonoured and thus the complainant filed the comp1ain..t;~.._
3. The accused appeared bef0re_,»the T’;’i.a1″””°
contested the case.
4. It is the specific case the,the cheques in
question were issued at the of sale
was entered into withythe the sale deeds
were registered” :’p1’operties in favour of
children his after paying the entire
sale consideration. * case that the cheques,
which were in’ of the complainant, were not
compiaihant saying they are in the house and
they~- later. The said cheques are misused
van.d thepresentcomplaint is file.
“:p1’OOf of the respective case of the parties
T corI’i’p1ainar1t was examined as PW–1 and got marked Ex.P1 to
T
4 CRL.A.NO.53l OF 2003
PT. On behalf of the accused, himself was examined as {)W–l
and got marked Ex.Dl to D7. The Trial Court found’
accused is guilty of the offence alleged.
e. The accused being aggrieved, filed
54 of 2002. The lower appe1lateg:'”court”‘ they’
materials, has allowed the appeal”‘an_d aside’-the} order of
conviction. Being aggrievedlthe in the present
appeal.
7. I have”heard.the;fargurnents’_”of the learned counsels for
the parties a11d’pert1_inaterials placed on record.
l ” Th’eapo’int”t.hat arises for my consideration in this appeal
is; Vl’j~u.:dgment passed by the Lower Appellate
$’Court suffers’ infirmities calling for interference by this
f
5 CRL.A.NO.531 OF’ 2003
9. My finding on the above point is in the negative for the
following reasons:
The complainant has deposed to~.»th_e it”
in the complaint. EXP} and P2 are the
are bank endorsements. Ex.P6 is__riotice;’ ‘1’he’~.pres’11rnption”» V
u/ s 118 (a) and Section ofothe’_:Negotiableinstruments
Act is available to the the contrary is
P1’0V€d by the accused True been examined
has DW1 has issued at the time
of sale the said cheques the
cornplainanthasl V-‘sarne allegedly towards the
balance It is an admitted fact that the
jregistereldtlas per Ex.Dl to D3 after the sale
Vi’.iproperties are sold by the complainant in
xwvlfavour of members of the accused. If the amount
of sale consideration was not paid the
clornplairiant could not have agreed for registration of the sale
It is also found by the Lower Appeliate Court that
T