IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARHATAICA AT BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE law any or-* mAncHkL2qGak
nunnunt sum;-Ar 'hI;.I"".._1i-')I').F:i')uP'KVII"-:2 .
J
m::h1aamn;1appa,
K! I .. 'l"'\ s'I'NI_.'._..........
Bf U .I..Jn I.-I-I-l.lIl.1fl.lJ1.E.,
Ag-ed about 64 'gram , V.
we Nn.3529!6.*5**?_'ms:itii{' fl %
E311 "
[By 'V ii 'ax Srfloumel for
...
This Cr1.A. is filed under Section 378(4) of the
3 amen praying tan set aside the ardeer of acquittal
J
u.I’i’L”EI’1.1.3.’3.{“r’lr fisfi i:a{1.C “H ”'””””-“”° 1′” *’~- –
I Cnurt, Dammgere. for the ofibnoes pf ul 8. 138 of the
N.I.£ct.
Il.’II-llululnfl-uI’Ml”‘ Haw I-P.’ use u ‘
‘Thin Crl.A.non1ing on for hmring this day, the
Caufi. :’a.n’-:.-}iir’ax+-1:’-:x’i the %’-‘u’im:=
The appeallant filnd a complaint
20:; of the Cr.P.C. bafbre the trial
the mapondent
._l.n-I1!-H3305 ‘Iv
issued by the
uppallant’ ‘innuficinnt
fundat
._’.&.–:fi_ af :2-.5 mat fi’:1′.¢’.*:’.-.~~
au.Asut.Executiua er,
bmaflts in Ganaah Finance
the respondent. happens to be
Q-“Q; rmrfrulra 9. .11 nnfllfin _’g1’l_’.
% j in hi. name :’i;’t::.H6.3SGf %, “.1 ……. ‘-.
of his son-in-law T.N.Vflaya Kumar in
‘A Nn.69I5,’96, Rs.’?0,0DD]- in the name of his
301:} Santhoah in Account No.69?! 96 and Ra.95.00Dl-
in 1:.”-re :*'””-‘=- 61’ hie. ‘e.’*i!’e. ‘-‘.£..”¥..LJ.5-.1i*.1L-. ” ‘M91! .9;
E
501f9E: and the said depoaita were manic
-an
finance mrporation oonoamad had ofibmd intoreat of
2%3:m’ month. ‘
3. As the Finance company
mmmt on 1.09.01 tdia
iv v: 1 V’
,’I’€31′”a£:1,”.fi.1 a=-5%’.-::.n.. 1:1′.-ee1:.e:1__
t1*§-=&&%%%%-==m—
complainant approaut;-Ii§5:”*t’t1e
the bearing
Nn.*%96-55?’ – drawn on
lfhvnngare.
n iellhi VJ’L’.hafl..i’;i’Il ‘.1 ‘ ‘..
‘;”x”:*m: aggcxlu. =.,um.1us_ ,3:-res-e..m’-.*.:e-.:’. was 1’etur-‘-..ed …*.:..
ifiwétl a} maponclaxit, but the reopondnnt
A.J_’ ..£.
‘ . fiia a complaint ‘:’:’I锑6r”é thfi zusu Cain; as
afgn~m.ia for initiating the action aga.1nst’the
‘A s ‘_ under Section 133 of the N.I.Act.
4 ‘l’1-m. !.=.-nu-.n.«-I H-{n1 . ulna urn-|=u’2in nu fl1__s_a
u 1&5? Tilda!-I-«Gil-ll I-I-Jinn ‘I ‘III’ I-I-Ira–urn-n;-5
evidence placed on heanajf’ ” of firm appefuan’ t.
himselfwaa axa:minadauPW–1 andtakingnobe ofthe
}/
V-
‘1:.;+.;¢_”i”._V;11._»,.A
I
-II
da»<:um:snta producedan pea'E:m.P1 tn-Paandalno ma
esriyxience placed by the respondent who
11m-'"1aa*.t' ea D".'.'=l ar
'5}.
conclusion that the
that than waa 1659335′
mm the t1aa
rcznpomant in question
. _..-_1.._ ………….. ‘ -Iutnnuuuutfl-311.; {-
‘L_’_IiWfiI.I’I’.lH 3 >lu-lJlilI..F I.I.l.Iu.I.tuI|.nI.wr 4. …..1″..-…
aa tihn appeiimt had
wad» hr him in
.1″.i%- his family members, the
not tabliuh. the necessary
and also taking now of the rulings
_ sides and accepting the decisions upon
* mpanaam has plaoed reflanoa, ultimately
” 3% -4-c.-z.-.p1ai:’-.t. by 5-.m,uiI*.L1′..v:-,5 flue zespgmggnt
at’ the offitcnne puma’ habit u.t.uier zaiwuo” ” 11 138 of ” ‘
N.I.Act.’ It in thiajudgmant of acquittal that ‘3 callnd in
quwtion by the complainant in this appeal.
‘/¢’/’-
5. I have hazard Sr1.M.S.Rajendra Praaad. learned
Swnfir Cuurmal for the appellant and Bhnt,
-a_..-n.-u-«I¢,;u~l I2.a»r|-i.n.-r 5G11naAl fhfl
u.I…M. uvuau u.Lm-v .I.-nu. tiny ‘*9
‘5
”
paras mnteria1_9?’,’1’ficnrti’.’~* ‘
6. T1: auhmissi§;n–.gf
is that error in
tlw pr%a’fimPfififlk%&?w’1fik§: ~b’~¢ appellan” t under
Eaabomfing this said
that a oamful
_f’_ on record would go to
3135137.’ timt t_’t1é..qrs:}1sai1us in quasiion wmh ii flu-arkm-J at
§&&a..,_/igvaued by the respondent because the
of the respondent on Ex.P1 had not been
« and so alao the fact that the rwpondent being
~~ ..;;a
VIJ.l.~~
~ uft.l’1e 3-..*=-..rt-c-..er at’ -‘._’%:-1%}: ..– izxe-;..*1-..”E1 (..’-o.rgr.:-a.._’ :1; 111
V addition. tlm 1-eaponciacnt %meac:l’ ‘ as EW-i has aha
mihnrxittead the fact of the appellant having deposited
various a’mn3hahianam¢fiawe11aa inttnerxanmaof
sung son-in–1aw and wife. As sufih in the face of
QT
.»/”V,
1’
such mddmm on record, the trial Judge could not
.n.n;-I-J-54:1] it
“-
1 law: nun-l’In h.’ er
lfi MW ylfibusuywln in. Man’ Mass»
the appellant. It wan
respondent is not a mi’ *1
mm is evid.m1¢:ed fiamga i ;:._1″a:::f’AvV.if_t_;’1:e3VVVr*.”io-r.’Vu:2:I}:tnt
I11
1:. ii: mmmg the cheque
in quea-tifln fhifigézi tbs -ru–ufi”ru.uu;*””‘it is
mt in cmapute. for the ma Court
but 3:-ta- ‘ under Suntan’ n
Ay;f:’a§ case of than appellant ought
V’ to disprove the case (If
trial Court; did not retbrnd to the
A ‘of its entire judgnannt and as such the
” ju.-131*»-ant 5′. -“~-.:.it*.aI mrmat 1:.-.=.~ sue+..-z-..-“.2-..e-1..
in law an acmunt of erromoun application of tho
pcrmriainna 0:!’ 1:12 N.I.Act. Hume this Gouxft aittirg in
appeal haa got every power to re-appraciate the entire
gel-.i_m1_t_:1_e,:; Counsel for the appellant
Q,
9′,
§
L
subrnitwci that the respondent 3% be convict.-.ad for
t_11e; punishable under Section 138 pf
affi. juatifi be %. by fiitfi-s*.ir.g tlae. _ to
retntrrx the amount
ammtnt in the fruit of –:
app-e1lar11: as AusLEx&§u;ive hi
the =.n;r…,’I.:-rs a1;1;:1_;i_asi:;-ma,x:t1;g~.;earijbd.v_§2q1imo1 for the
app-eiiarxt §arL”‘r.fi-a ri_*-%”‘- supufiruci in
Am 19’rs;gC, 173.
supported the
jmgxnmt¢:A;:La and argued. that the cheque
i.u.%;_, fix.P1 was not nmtually issued by the
it was a bank cl’:-a~..,ue whisk me
% had given to other pa:-mm
Z and the appellant in celluaion with the said
x V31.’-idlmr Shenoy managed to get the signad blank
-.l:1.u:snI_1e_a :i1.’l_a.c1 the particulars, entered the date
“”8
,.__’I A.I..£_.
aI2miau1nuIItanum1uisr:1a-arfraamabareparaauls
“I
the ch-aqua itself because the signature is in the.
of one person, whereas the other contents
Sb
(/ ,
\’
——
aminwrmatlnrhandwritingandthmehaho
Ei;”.P1. as fiueh. ti” m-ytridmt % nfit Ia:
nan-paymant of the
am ma ramuy «5
Canflfiratinn. In '
z. which is
protiucnati at that the ek--we
isaued in the yaar
1993,’ is stated to have been
this itself shows that the
m aw.-…re +1’…-.-; blag :_*.11.I.:q1_J.1;s
aim and had misused the same
xcrzjdzfiftvs ——– thsa’ chaqua amount from
T. It is the specific argument of the
A am 12.11:: baa failed to produce the
u in ~~—–= ma as .*:–…–:.-a ap.-..–.a-..-.= 1-“as:— 1:.’-.:.-.d.e
um name of the appellant and his memioera
namemwlasmnnmardingm thevary adminuiouoftlxa
agpellant himself. that nature of deposit made was one
sfaa.1:3r»$a_%LL.r;*.;n..ud_’;_hgI;’ewgz1ninmadimm1tfiur
f\
}/,
\
rim appellant to withdraw the amount which was
stmzdirzg in mvirzgs bank a.c:count.
mafia kg: am: a-c'”pe11at1t in the
fhat ‘the! respondent does
Rs..5,4fi~,500I-, Mao”?
adlzmjwsicrn made by
t_113:’-:2 was no from the
mu1.131¢’4’§ the floctxmecnta
Ewan indicate that the
resbuttezd the presumption
“the ;a.J,m1_I..Il;1r;t and gas such the
E’
1′ .’ ‘ ‘_V V’ ~V
37′-“-5′-3″-9’1” T
E
jfihtified in the ra+.p.anda:r..
..ano£Pinr–….euhmiaaion made by the learned Senior
_ Blut is that the prmumption under
* 139 of the N.I.Act to be drawn is mm only
1
r
E
E’
:-
E
i
I
3
draws: 3..-‘3 £-awn:
I3
t..’r1-2.;
E
“3
§
E:
C
E
g:
5
E
5
m1:1m- at the cheque. and that the name has ‘wan
issued in discharge of any debt or other
However. the said prwumptbn catmot be extended to
axiutnrnce of wallvy 1-mmmabh debt.
9:
9.,”
L-
Tlmreforeasflucmatnenialonracordgoeetoixndioate
flmtthaaprpallanthnn ihihadm
*u’a.u’%tr;..t’m af L-gs-.113 :.-mu.-.-e.»-9.1.21.-2 debt. 1: _’i.es_.§.1uL!.
that the appaiiant has
Pllnjahable under ‘.:’-«e:otio1:t:’» 13:3 c}:t’
the respondent. In ‘
mg on the
_ _r ..1__'”- …
01 um Ft. “””””9» APP. “”…..–‘$’.’
…_-‘-.n…%,’..’..v … ..’~….”~ .- .1 ‘
733 2099?”
——– tha submissions made by
_ cited, the pain’: cfimfifia.'”fi
appellant has made out a case to
_ ‘ the: order ofaaqttittal passed by the mm
9.. Sinca much exnphaaia was iaiti by the ‘iaarnnri
Comma! for the appellant. an Sacthn 139 of the H.I.Act,
by uantendjng that once” it is dmtabliahxad that the
r;:_L:n::_:L1;g in quegfinn i.e., Ex.P1 ban the sigzmmra of
Q
&/
L_
t1r1e raapondent and the said fact h mt being denial
but an the other hand admitted by the’
-V .1-_..__._’ “_
1–
to have irlvui-nau:i.i’:1e In >
the appellant by virtue of Segatim. –‘l3Q_v::f ~
naeuwvefii rmmsary to keep
bean laiui down decisions.
In 4:}-.e -caee m’ $3.3.-gh 5.”.-1 et..e1e
: gzzc-o7″13§:::c ‘ma referred
to in the complaint
138 of tha N.I.Ac’t, and it
Section 13.3 of the 11.1. Act
fflmplafi-m-‘ must a1’1b”” that 1}
;§1}g*.:;’u:a.’1év%ia:z~u.._.i.;:aeau¢:d. 2] the saw: was presented, 3] it
_ on praaantation. 4) a notice in terms
A was sewed on the person nought to be
* ..’..e-;…1.e, a.) dapi… %I.ri-r_!-3 sf -_..ig~I;-.2, ngit_1’1ar @
was made mr other oioifiatintis, H W”-we
mmpliad within 15 days from the date of receipt of tha
nutine, 3’/
10. as far as the presumption availabks under
Secztzitm 139 of the N.I.A::t ‘3 concarnad, Court
*” “M M” at I§.}.=’r.=.~..’-=1-.:.-.-.*-=-+~ 3. 1′-‘.I*f.-‘=I1’-43?-?«’i=”-ri’m5f
Lanna. 1 I. ‘$;””‘I-I-‘hr
avaflahle. under Secfiom 139 mg i’1j31:a)%j’¢rt¥s»_fi[.z;Q Act. %
amilaid dawnt1r1ef::1E __ A x
in
“regard to an
aomajned L~11a[a1&kL therein and.
aegznindjy, the holder uf
at’ the nature-
1a9 discharged in whole
debt or other liability.
%pm.– A under Swtinm iiiitaj and
~–.1,39 Axéehsuftable in ‘v’v’}mruaa us:
) ‘
_ ‘I
ii
:3
« j%%:&.4%«%g;mmbm doubt; one on the: acouaed is
mum preponderance of probability.
regard ‘bu the clefiuitinn of burns
“pmved” and “disprovacl” as mnfimmd in
Sactian3oftheEvidmweAx:taua1sutl1é
nature of thsa said burden upon the
pm-eecution vim-a-viz an aaouscd it is not
naoaasa1ythatth.eaccuaa;i xnuatsmp intot.he
A.
3:
witxnexsa box to dinchargc the burden of proof
in tesrnrm of the aforemetltioned
11. In the dmision of Krishna
Va. Datttatraya G.Hgde
V’ _ 1- _M-on-I, K u-A
legally rewwrable daiit-fi’aonem~1ea. ‘ “, it a
of N’.I.Ax:t uni
relevant are to be found
M
% 139 at’ Sactian
A _ = V. Act ciefirms ‘neggatiabh
mean “a pt-ominaury mm, bill
or cheque payable eithuar to order
saction 133 of the Act has three mm” mm.
1 that there in a legally enforceable debt;
the’ t the chuaque was drawn from the
[in] that me ohaque so iasued. had been
remrnad due to ina11fficier1cy offunda. %r
ammn pg-e’.-‘.433 fer V
‘* T befiare &,v’J£;i§§ii1-._::I_a.i’i1f1t~;
be acted upon by a co1i;:ft: §n_i’A’lVnaLwQ”
91- the Act 3
regard to the asp-act mmzbur.
E:vc:istenca debt in mat a
matter of ‘Sanction 139 of
me preamnm in
a 9%’ fihéque that tha ea.-me
fiat of any debt or
{7?:i.’i’§T 1i%7s:.’u;’:’i1ii’.”;’,?,’
g courta bal-ow. as noticed
” pznoeaded on the basis that
_ rakes a presumption in regard to
ofa debt aha. ‘I1::e courts below, in
“‘_~v_…pu,r”opir1inn, a aerinua m-I-or 111
the ‘.!.’i’-Ltlfiéi. !~.=-ax 9…n.d. =..1:.n~_.1.%s 11.
would not be dhcharfl his burden. Such
an approach on the part :31′ the courts, we feel.
is not correct.
fly
23. An accused for dhchargmg the
burden at’ proof placed upon him a
statute need nut emamirle
discharge his buxdan on the
Ii’.!I|.ll.IlL1.«ll.Il§,1 U1 y1w..If..u:..I. tzfisfi Ayufi. “‘f fifl
Mn
MI 5’
35]
‘=5.'””n..}»”pa.-‘*1*z’i sf ‘.%’….’-
–. ‘ . -noted hereinabove. the
– which encuergaa is that
” _aric:ge’m:a:;i;.ti:3n of the promissory note:
9′
11813} we-u_’u.’i awe tun””‘t it as
* suppbrwd by a consideration. Such a
is rebuttable.
of a uomiclecration by raiaitu a probable
defence. If the deferuiafit is prove”-“*-ti ‘ea
have discharged the own of
proof showing that the mfinterace of
mmidarmfinxn was i..rx1.1′.=z’-;a1;r.t.I.l.11¢-; or
doubtml or tho same was, illegal, than
onus wnujti uilift in the pm1n’ 17″‘
willbeobligedhopcroveitas amatbarof
faotandupovnitafailuretaprovewould
%entit.’.=.: 1′.-its: L”. the gz-4.=-..v:s!.. efz’4=.2li_-£911
the basis of the nagntiabh imtrumant.
“Iha burcien upon the ciefenciant of
Eg
–
pcrovhug the mn-cum:-awe of the
caomitieratiun can he aithtar or
bringing on mmrd the
of by raferexma
In such an event. the iv = ‘ ‘
entitind ‘L1.!lIi61′ iaw upo’n.:ifafl”t}1eV
ervidance led in t11I.=.!’cas”e§
of 1:11: plsu’nt1fl’as ii!u1l.:j*I:1 mm,
the clefendazit %i.’~.a’V..t.-.’:’–._&cl=,a.-»’.’ge ”
anus
ru:an~e::i.st:anoe dffitiz-a canhaigiiar;-.#;fiai;, the
pl:-:m1=i_i1’__
“n.’iF1°d Eh? E¢==*.fl*%y%°T ,P’F?_”‘!”P”3.”
*5″. W .. ma!-f’%””‘3’3’ “P””
the 1ao’d:’spmzae”H1e e.u’ste.’naa
‘ of negative
1:,_1-15*’–=%–‘V fifififiwmfi mr
«««« amitavzn ifled, is to be
{E m}._.=1’-.4-;-.$$ aazppi
_ whereas pmsacutinn
% the ;_;ui1t ofan acctmescl beyond all
doubt, the standard of proof so as
:.m{:p2fove a defence on part of an aocuaad
% ‘ of probabilities’. Inference
” %¢.-if preponacrame .51′ pmbabilitiaa can be
drawn mtonly from the matnriah brought on
ra:ardsbythapartieshutahuBy:’efem:r1ont:o
the cixwcumstanxaas’ upon which “” ‘” .
25. A statutory prcaumption has an
evidentiary value. The question as to whether
the presuznption whether stood rebutted or
35
:17:
mt, must. therefore. 106 determinnd keeping
in V1-I;’-‘W the cther evidences on record.
said purpose, stepping into the
by the appellant is not i.t11paratiV!3[-I 1;: * %
impiication cannot
.n.ra.a-1-Ina. i.:In.tmn.+’I\-.-0-I IE1
In-LEHLI
nfifl
III-II-8″
.5;
3
E5′
33′ :
,5.
Mmi:;u..__ [(20053 5
it ._1lfik1ijj¢.haVt. 6i1oe um accused in
to it amrw
Q’ 12; the above position in law, I
_; ‘ “nzimr the case an hand.
T. in the case ofthe appellant that ha mm’ and
-.,i.¢;’:ra::t;i}i’-;1r_r1_._; L11 Cianmh Finance Corporation
____1…_…4. l.”.n.1…… …u……_.d……….-. ..–..-I {:5 in
L1 AI. in
T x 9_.fi’Whi::h ‘i am an
alas’: the specific case of the appellant that inwatmecnt
made was I-‘2s.2,DD,{X)’.’J,’- in his name, Fo.’.1,0D,CID[– in
thfi name ofhis sonin law, R8.70,000I- in 1116 name of
hit; an Hr? Rafi!-.’§.,l.’.l.”.\i’_1g’-i iz1t_h_g nIa_r_n._e gin’; It is
II-nannnuu II -4.-
X
II’:
also 17$ came that as the intmest an than abave deposit
was 11:31: paid. as of 1.9.2001, he has in
f 4.1.. ..nI4anAAaulIA.fl ‘Ivar ‘Ind-vn -In cud-llfisafl–nFJvui1v1f’3
A .n. 4cavu-;.;.-I-Iu-I’I-
U L.l.l.|:.’- nu: I..I..I.J.I.. u.’E?yUIn.l.I.IU~u My .I..u..u..|. ua. v.=r«_._LnuvI.ut.’.=v_
and tbs outstanding; .V
mp:-.ot cat’ which, 5
14. P.W.1 has
plasma argl above stand ta1aecr1
1:.-gr r_1_o;:1ungz1t
– , ” Fm ML
lay t111;;1=..1t1_prc>:’:uz_oI_’!:.II1a%=: rs Inf: said
.h2J%Iz’euainn um it is issued in
$.13. account of the appellant
.. No.3-3»O_I96. Except the said
+’w- flmmnte are MM”-‘.:=-rd *1’-
llnl-WIK} ‘ID flfifi Q
. « inveutxnanta mmie in the names offim at’nar
% of his family. It is the apeeciflc case of the
= : afigamam am he had depnuitaud nmournn in the names
ofm family tnenflxzra. But the appellant has failed
.. …’l”
pime afljr’ Efifirr’ “‘1. ‘-yaf
r¢:apeot.ofott1erfam1l3,rmcn1be1-sandthaonlgg
doc.~.umant produced as per Ex.PB in of this
3*
-19-
aaid amoum; of the appellant being S.B. account. It is
Qt; the aviziemzae of the aypellant
amarumita Wm c”rpaai*..an” in the i-E-nu-.._*.”‘*l_””;’
members with Garnsh ”
do-r;-1, m:m1t is produced Elli’.-3:’). *1
the fact cf ‘due , E ‘M ‘inf
13…; £1s..n.mh FiziLa_n_u:.x: La. by the
:11 __
1 in: ru.u.Ia.I.ua an ‘F5?
_..’._A. …… ….
l
1xrltm¢thc._1-4_1f:rmre record to indicate
appellant in a sum of
himself in the on-uroe of
an-I-:1-1-ii-*Ing_-l_ 1:1v1__e_t ELP1 ur
ya! i.._ iguana-no-uunu — 2…
_ raapornient and fI.1rt’ner admission
” is apoaking the raapondant in not
V T. to the appellant R5.5,46,5lI)[-.
‘V315. The further adxmaion made by P.W.1-
” Véijépeflant in the ncourua ofhia cross-exnmirmtinn in that-
‘ hr: dag: not any docurrmnt to show that he had
% auwtirit in 1″…’-.7.=. -*u<-1.."…=..–.- 'of his "……..–"-*"_'-,-
mnmbers with Ganaah Finance Corporation and has
game: no application also to the fizmnce carporafinn in
3/
' a
quceution whfle opecning the dnpooita. He mrther
admits that the savings bank aucoxutt him
wag '~"'-'wi.,..5 I.r'"""'"'°1-rU.tut¢'a'd. bf: him and m and
anm-unm withdrawn by 1:
cheque nurrlbfiffl I3t’3:3jl$il~
16. V It is _of time respondent
tlag- 1~_e_{ Ex.P1 In the apfllant
a:au:Hega-iiw%;¢.V P.W.1 as-imta ‘um’-“t Ex.P1
hamt’ by the: rmpondent in the oourne
‘of tn appellant’: notice Ex.P3 in that
…9.-:1 aig.fl.er.1. 9. ‘l.1.h.n.n1: r.=_.-1511,11- ;I_.nd. .1.1:.1.d.
_ &.__._ A.’__
t Sr1c1nar'” Sammy’ whn was suuim azwr um
-of the German Finance Corporation and the
Vétnapalhnt has managed In calhct the said cheque from
‘t}:1::1:mroo11whowaainchargeoftr1eafl’airuof$
Gar’-ah {“Jsrwr.*==.*’….c:-.. It k t t!’.-..-.- a,.fis.ecifi.t.’: J……….r.:e ..f
the rwpon-ient that appoflant had taimn time blank
cheqwa from 3% Ganash Finance Corporation as flu-
batman iz1t11sa3,r::ar1998.a11dam-‘rfillingupthesarrle.
prmmmd it tn the bank in the month 2002.
In ‘7 __
‘£39m an–we I£x.Pl !’.’-&|:…. 22.9.: r-1.1__her in
the rezpfty notice it in
cheque beatixig No.+9os55c3 i.m:%¢nm;.ms %%
ma annthar cheque
om Shri K.v.Bhat the
claw.-.fi”a in .
year in the. repiy no-irioe
in when he was
“‘1a;:sa_ further facthtlmt cheque
is urn uuuu uu.u.L::u.””””‘.i”fi
92… 1′; ___’I __..L…_…, -..
nun & any—u’Cv’.n.vvII
‘E ‘J’.'”‘|.. wsn.uwu.
ink uaud. for signing the cheque.
_ D.W.1 had admittad that sigzmtura in E:I¢.Pl ‘3
« the eeviclenae placed by him probabljsea
” rage t1″.at.c.l”…;.-qua F.-3.?! …..e a H1-mlr r*J’I=H’n i.
— w———1–.-_
by .h1ms:r1c1’giv¢11 or:
fimmidchequehaammemmehanduofflmappdhnt
and other contents ween: entered in a diflarent ink and
néhaqua was pmaerrlzed to the bank on 27.5.2002.
D,
«)7
W
Tlmaa -M1-mxmntancm tbaarafore, give raise to probabliae
‘tha deeferuae taknn by the rasporninant tlzat, not
at:-t*..1a1′.;;.=r’ #116 3.11 am.’ sum ta t’;:..-= _*-.-.–“”‘–
reacrxewct-able from him 5
Gain: of the appal]a1fl V,_v”‘?:rnrm…V -ufimoaimmm 9 man
.s.=-.’,.g:t,;:=:=I.I:_as..t..t was Corporatmn
..!_..48
Act; .3 is ‘fie faua-.=u ii’: famuf *1′
TA: _’ us in quuation was issued
umrama n’iffio:A:}VIA1a:1:1?”g# (:I’.d::ht or atlrmr liability. yet if there
that there was no legally
‘ {£39 cannot be attended towards tb mid and.
rm law laid down by the Apex Court in the case
= sew 738-mwlaiclllhavenlmndy
t_1;’!._a.«i-1;:
18. Invierwofthnlawlaiddownasabovvebythe
finer!-E;4:n1_;_r’I;;m;1glnc:t11nobuarvntinnnmndei11fl1n
0 ,
&/
\J
dminion reporbacl in 200811) SCC[CRL.] 200, it is also
not na-zaargr for the accused to step into
‘rpm–rn
“ya: a ii-«c}*.a,rge L… ..,u..r-:’l.m ef nrmfa
n. 4
, –.\
-it.
has placed Ex.D1 on
quuastinn was V
OM
notwmmtamnng tlm ‘nnV”A1§::.P1 371:3
£2
3!
E:
a:-
E?
Er
« gs. . .
I.’-
I
.3
5;
ti
–1
ii
I
in
1
II
E
the Danni Va. sum of
575) haa clarified the
lm1da’ of praaumpt3ans_ ‘ and
nag “I.-ail ‘ t}*”‘x: in t.c”*ia-= Mae sf
e V” ~ (14. ‘1__
ii
same: may be rahuttecl by an %
k’ % . which might mmmbly be mm and which
« is.-ti§§i;;1§;iste¢:1: with the: irumcatxce ofthc aocuscd but “on
” Vtha at!’-……-”
..=.=-…:’-…-.1, in .11. v__… ..f ymsumptinn
in the asses of praauxnpiion ‘asaetvn 139 -f the
N.I.Ac1t., tlwhuldxsnrestingnntiw accused pennant in
sunhaoaacawouldmtbeaa lightaaitia. Thaaaid
pres-umptioncnntrembuttedbyfllaacclmedby
§)<_*
(/
\ 'I
adducing evidence. In View at' the expreasian 'unless
the contraxgr is proved" , it h-acaarzma gun the
wt mi 3.1" azrc.-'.2595. tr: ,% 1.:'n.e.t L1
fawn-ur of the holder of 2
placing surllcient 1I{1_"
words, was has b-sen
$2.
.,.+.’.s3i-n to case, it is
mt t3ur”s”:’ix:i3rii. ‘us: u£*~’E-a..’- -W-1–‘H-+1
. ‘ ‘ g
but axplm tion offered’
by M what precisely’ words
requires. In the
Vi:z_1.-st;-gzlt if t_h-5.: gzbnva pzcopoaitinn of law
_ flawn, has }ifiiv’T’1 fram ‘u:}'”‘ ‘*u’:”um”t3*
on record t.h.at)fl.rst) tlw cheque in
_ a blank cheque signed by him and given
A parltnczr of ma finance corporation,
” _ffi.a;’£_ , me pr-..a.ei……”*..j,r ..£ L.-5.: mid. :.:…l@_u1g
n1a~:i:r:. uae uf” by the appeilani. by’ up am”-
mmamaaandpz-auefitirxgittathebankinflrxeyaar
2ChC32a1aacannatberu1edoutaI1dfl1irdl:,’.a11drIx>at
~iw1nnrtnr1’thI’. Ema raspndent has also shown from the
._…_:n…– ………_._.._J ; ‘WW,
Q _
yf
\
–“*~”<~ —
um? evidenoe of the appellant himself and the
%..:.”..:=»…nt L’!1t.=P!i,- by the the
«I-4-. ‘nan!
N P”), +1-an
raapornfient fiafi 1″: iiahia Rs.5.%;5£¥: >£:%f:” ,_….,
appellant because the very of’ %
he had made deposits 4*:
nflnn 9″ ‘V .. V
l””n-an-nnr
VH5 13111.9!-Ill-‘I-l’ III}!-
;____…1-|_… .. ….. .. °
up-peanut udnu ..a’..’r..1te-.
in ma mnde:_ 5;’ v.x1oe;:’tIifit:::h3:::u$sd’ %to[¢aepos1t and withciraw
the: he desired also
thatv appellant has mt been
‘ and the refer:-ed to by ma,
Z the reasons aaafinead by the learnvad trial
% Judge, 1 do not find any perversity orfinding In as to
‘ §i:1+..&.r£e.m¥.eiL?;fl’_p1ri;rwtaJ:em1bythetria1CourtwIfioh
% ‘..’.’.e-.*..-5-..”‘i.*.-.1911
View in an phuaihla iFif:’w” fi %:.-1
remrd. ‘I’heApeu: Courthaoalsotxaldtlnatwmantwo
Q.-.u~m.%
views are possible, the appellate Court. it net revenue
4%
_-
um judgtncnt cf acquittal ttlerely bemause flue other
ig possible %-wthe judgxnmat trial
Crnmt firm mt s::fi’a: 1′-mm rm at
rmmraal «of the order of
‘\
20. In I am of tha
fified by the 1.~.~ai1 Court
in “dis e.~aa.m-.~.m
Z dapmit and withdraw the
bank account which he has
3 “wi1h” Corporatinn and likaawzhe, the
J…-.’…-u ‘Inn as’: n
irffwmgg, M:u..|.n. «mafia» sf th-.-; amegr mmbera of the
V’ aim be operated in the i’fIfif’J.T:”‘.Ifii”. E”-1
u mtwitlmtanding the View taken by this
{3n1.1rt Em afirming tlzne order of acquittal paused by the
….=.=-… Qm..1..r1;i t_l1c= ifhe is ac» deairea, in at liberty
Curpomtion to remwr the amount that is depos’i:ed ‘pry
hJ’mi11hisnameandinthennmeaofthefan1i1y
%
mmnbemardintlwmaentaftlmappellantmkimauch
. it is made clear that the
pm-suing any other mmaciy ” V»
In the: m’au1t. I pass figmmg mm».