High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri T B Shashikumar S/O Late C R … vs Sri T B Rajashekhar S/O Late C R … on 5 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri T B Shashikumar S/O Late C R … vs Sri T B Rajashekhar S/O Late C R … on 5 November, 2008
Author: K.Ramanna
IN THE HIGH COURT 0;» KARNATAKA AT BANGALVCi§{E "--vv

SATED TEES THE 5TH DAY OF' Novamflagafi.    .

B€F()RE   

THE HON'BLE MR.JUsr:<j"?E r;ijRk;M21NN3$"    '«

ckzsmxw. Appméfiw. ;z5é,«':ao0~5"'  

BETWEEN:

SEE T E SHESHQFIUMAR  

SWO LFXTE C» R EESAPPA

AGED 45 YRS, V    V

RXAT CORQNATEQN RG53), ' ' '~ ;

TUMKUI3 DIST ",~ 2  'V " _ 1'  "   . .  APPELLENT

{By  <3 R 'P§.é3rs:e3éH 'a».$;:é:~zFq;=.s§iii:N:, ADV)

AND :

SR} RA,xAsH'E'KHARfiT  
WfO;'LA"i"3E2 <3. R BASAPPA

    ~  ..... 
;p;'i' N(')."?3;' 2&5, VEERABHDRESWARA
 ' NiLAYA;._VI:'Ai75AM'ESWARA TRANSF'OR'T
 019?. (3£,D._SUMA'FHi GIRLS

f§§C3--.¥{ sc§~:L', "
<::<';«§:QNAf:f10;§ ROAD,
'F§P'I'EJR;--.TU'?vi§{UR £)i$3"i'.  RE$P(I3NE3EN'I'

   ~:9.:v_r_ sn:=z~.&;s P£¥'i'IL as PATIL ADVCiCATES§

"  V'   CRLJX. FILED U/S 3?'8 CFERC ?RAYiNG TO SET ASIDE

'i§HE JUDGMENT (BF ££CQ{,fITT&L D'? .25--i1-2665 PASSEB BE'

 "'"':':»~:E PRL.C.J.{JR'.DN.} 85 JMFC, TIMPUR, IN <:.c,Nm14a;e1,

    



ACIQUITTENG THE RESPOND'ENT~ACCUSED FOR THE Qmgwca:
P/U,/S138 OF m.Ac'r.  *

THIS APPEAL COMING 024 mg ::1CTAT:Nc3;;s--:::}:§':§é;E:§§*:?.

THIS BAY, THE: COURT DELIVERED THE F0LLow;§;£3;,   '

JUDGMEfif"~7

The a?P€lIa3:1t compiailiant V}4:L':1é7s_I?.<3m6  

appeal chaficnging the '-dategi befissed VV

in C.C.No.1 145/200: ;;y.;1m  §3x:g_1gc (..i'r';x:}n)'& JMFC,
Tiptur -acqmffing the fC%1é)Oif1C1'%€§i1::i Vx:::§';'iiil_:_1:tc€ punishable

under Section   him for the said

ofi:"e;1ct§, ' '
2. u'i'I_:;é _ceVi:-s{:"V  appcilant harem is that the

ms.;&§;rid€nt bdirafifid  sum 9:" R$.1E:S,G(),€}O(}[-- fmum him on

.A 5;3.f2@§ii..a--:~;&..issued a post dated cheque] EXP-1 dated 5«4«

   Bank of India, Arasikcrc Branch; when

 Wés presented for coflecfion through his banker,

   ;'&»1£?:fc1%i11£s C-0--0p€rat:ive Baxzk, Tiptur, the said cheque came

 iiifihflllflflifid with endorsement 'funds insuffictient',

  -~v-Therefore, €116 agpellant herein caused Ixatiéfi to the

refipondcnt, the notice sent to msyonéent uztlder RPAD

,1

 
  
 



mtumed with sham 'aédressee is um: found beeat

time', hawfivcr, the notice sent. under Certificate of  

deemed to have been scrvcci 1:11.. file   ba_t" V'

respenétsnt faiied to issue any r%:..:pl§,i'_"1i<;3r 'maaé 

cheque amount. Thercfort:   L'

against the rsspondcfit for   under
Sc:ction138 «of N.I.Act.V ._the appcliant got
cxamzilmd hi:I1;1sc?f as   P.W.2 and got
marked      the: respondent in

suppcigi «pf Ai3§i z~57,d.§%i?:t;faC:%_«:”c:;a3niz1ed himself as D.W.1 and
c:xa333i13€ €i<. marked docz13:3;2::nts–Ex. D~1 to

10.’ ;’l’i1€.:. Cgéift af’t6:rvgei;t1g through the materials placz-itzi

‘V béfbrc aéqgittcd respondent for the abevc said offence,

A fi*2’;:§e has come: up with this appeal:

3.’ the arguments czaf Counsel for bath the parties

anci fiezfiscd tbs rscords. T116 point that arises far my

€:a:3n_§1’c1cration is, Whether flflfi’. order of acquittal passed by

VA .. triai Court is proper and (“:{Z¥I’I’€C'{T?

–<' " ix
¢..'-.'—-'

4. Admittedly, them is no dispute between the paities

as to the issuance: cf the Cheque and signature of

found thereon arid further, {here i$ no dispute_.A’£’;i1at’A ~

Cheque came to be éishonoured whrtzl i¥Z”‘fi.’5V.’e”i§I’f.?.V’§§1P3,’L¥’.IVl”c1’t’¢’2§A. fer

encashmcnt. According to appeflaiat, ‘i:’eépoi1I”ié:fii $’ss;ie:.q

the said cheque towards cf

borrowed by him. On the 0_t_IiiE:r:_ jiiagtzd, specific
defence of the rcspoV11″€h§i1t’ 2000 he

has issued signer}. <:heq1_n3–*.:§::{ari:1g EXP-1 drawn

on Stégtc _fizéia3»_"2§ra3ikeI*e branch to the appcliant
with amount and to give the samt:

to {}’;’:enAtal Ifisufzifice Company towards the payment of the

pmmitlm of his thmc: lorries, but iglstead

fesptjxxfiéni s;fii{} ‘ to have paid the insuran’ cc amoum: on his

0&3 the said Chfiqilfl »~– Ex.P–1 with hhn, Iaffir

Q11, Tesponzicnt asked the complainant to I’€f.12I’E1 the

c’h.cc;i2e cm several occasizms but tbs accused field that he

__]:ias miapiacézd the cheque, but got filéfi camqplaint by

misusing the sams. in supmfi of his d€ifE:I}.C€:, the
T C?/’

‘ \

mspoadfint has mainly relied on £*3x.D.1 lczttm’ ‘by

appellant to the respondent, wherein thz: V’

admittcid ma: them is no iegally reccvsrabifg%ifi§:$’§V:.§;.ziiié::é’«.t1*if:

cheque] Ex.P~1, but according to

concocted document and W.é:;3V:”p;cpaitd_ it ‘LEICVV

claim cf the appcflagt, hqwc§€r_ “$5 of thti
apptiiant fmiind 03:1 fiisputed by 1:116:
appellant. F12ri;¥:1s=:;f, fif{§fl1 fljré ” made to the
rcspbndeng ” in his cross
exan1i;;1ati0I1’r§tspa:m}:1<3¢z1t is said to have
collectcci from the appellant anti made

use__§(3f flue saiim to CI'§i3.'{i€ EX.£)~3,. However, there is no

on record by the appcllani: to establish thfi

cii*ti;;§:£1V;é;t»%i;é3.v<:¢;§*;;V;"x%t}*l1<3zv:i:{1 the safi paper reached in to the

hasfids vs}? mspofidant and unciexstanding if any between

ii¥:1(=t appeilant and responéent is not explameé befon: ihe

" as such this said cmxtfinfifin ef the: appeilant 0311119:

befiavtzd. Qf camss, fllfiiffi is a presumption available in

favfiur 0f the ccmpiaitzant that the ascuscd issutzd cheque

towajxrls re;3aymentT 0f icgally recoverable debt <:r:f.-=__t_3t.hn:':r

liability and it is for the respondent/accnscci to

3333112. in the instant case {ha rtspandent *

Ex.}I}–1 has Iflbuttfid tha €Vid€fl£_IE*L~~Qf thfl"é§'i}f§¢li§§ii1t4_' .aI;.g;§ '

primafaci-5: showtrd before the Couit tijéxé';t11ér¢"is;11f§ ir::géii£y

recavcrabie debt or other 1:I1<;'im:'thc ,P#1 L'

and thus it was far firm appflflafiit-.tQ prov€: i1i=:§_cas;9;. But in
the instant case, the ;_i;a;<.1S"V–ifé2ij£flr3'd_ to ciischarge his

burden anti to pmvs h::f02"–t; said Ex.D–1

is a __ ';}_1r:1:'€ is nething on mcord to
disb<:1iex?&._t}1s cieféficé the rcspoxxdcnt. in View ef

thegfact failed to prove': that there is iegafly

" dgtbt c3rV';3'»"1§I;<::' liability under the chaquf: 1 E3x.P– I,

i§31'<}pc1' to further leek inio the findings 9f the

évifh respect tcs ths capacity 01" fhéft appeilant to

iémti iizfiiiey, The appellant had failed to pmve by-zfam Cictsurt

I'fi§341;:i"f§$'2IJ(}11€¥.€Ii'£ haé commiitcd an affence punishable ¥.1i!I}.d€1'

Sectiaiz 138 of NLACL '¥'hez'ef0rt:, E de net find any goon'?

grounds is intmfctm with the order of acquittal passgéc£.::'§;s.y7'%I§1e
trial Court. 3 ' V V

Accordingiya appeal is ciismisscdggs dpééiiié é
5a
A Iuéqe

flsp

L
*7'? –