3; &:+w.sAs.a: P;LR5£R;Th
IN THE H15;-4 cows? 09' KAFWATAKA AT BA;§£:-fim- NO§S~53SZ2{}0§':§
BEHNEENI
NISSAR AHMED, V
s/o K.MC)HMMED vA:<:;_}B,%
AGED ABOUT :15 $:EARs,¢
COFFEE
SALEHONNUR, '
ESLR. PuR.A.[TALs_J;g'A..;3, .
CHIKMAGALUi"'~E;§I$TRI£T'."~«.___ % %
V L' :APPEE..£_ANT
(av SRI.B.¥~§. saAr4A$:r§A;.Aa{;'.)
A¥\£D:
sgfo' €:H'EYAB;3A.,'E3§A'RY,
AGE-D A;BGUT"-1,5 YEARS,
" _KOTF££~§E'HARA ".¥I_Li_AGE & POST,
'A :-éziazseaa TALUK,
_CHI_§<MAGALU;_R BESTRICT.
:RES?ONDEN?
V gafsjaz; gm NATARA3, ADV.)
3. Gr: the basis of pleadings of the parties, "'i"r§ai
Sludge framed the following issues:
1.
Whether the plaintiff proves mi’
defendant had issued a cheq.i;.e__for_–e””%3::i9i-iv.bf
es.5o,coo-00 drawn on chl:kma.g;iei«iiwe-age’;____
Grameena Sank, Kettigelzarafibearing Ciaefque
Ne. 232932 on e.12.94§._i:i’-._ A ”
2. Whether the ~;;§ainti§f’_;:si:é:¢§.rfeiS:-that the éeid
cheese was dishefioer-eee..e:’i»i§l rietéiryied with an
er:Ge-lrseevienii::3*}Vi’i35i3i’feient l§i££i’t€’Vs’?
3;’ li*Jhe§h_e:i-lj.’t-hie”—s§:e’féndanl: proves that the
_a§iege§:i~~ <;Vheq'L=:eA"i_sV"z§btaErse5 by ceercier: and
v»»'-i;1ned"ue infi:§enc__e_?.»
VA T. the plaintiff is entitled for a sum
* A ' '-«Te? 5Rs«.".Sf3V,f9OB-00 witii interest and cosis?
What erder or decree?
is prove the case, in the Trial Cleizrt, pieiritiff get
‘keiiarnineci himsefi as PW-1 and examined we witness
‘ Abdul Razak {PW~2). Exsfii Se P4 were merged. Te prove
K’
tha defence, defendafit got hémaeif examined
E)-(5.31 and D2 ware marked.
4. 0?: appreciation of e\?.§d€f1’C’$3; ted §”n “th’é:: ‘ca§t-2,:
Eearnefi ‘friai Budge decre*:éd”*–~.};I’:e 2 ‘sfiét Vwzfié ljg:r::.3tVs 3a1vréci– ‘
interest. __ V _ _ _» _ V
5. Defendant fiiéd%séM~A;.L%}%§4%d;?;2fGcs1 in the Court of
the Principal Distrigt Js.;figé.af’t Eauastiening the
decree passéfi’ ::’*t,§’.’.}.€”:VV:”:§”:EV’V’VEaE Ceurt. in me
appeaj’,”dVéfeéi{iar§f§§ a:’;3~p§:;a:1é’§_”‘?%’§’é5 LA. %’s£e.\.! under Grcier
XL! Rfiia “Z7 ,.~permiss%on fer preducticerz cf
addi;ti<;na!'L'£sviV_éen:eAAa:_fsCi~~*"»L§:he appéicatien was aiiowed by
Firvé.i:":'Ap.Lg§e§»viate AC0'u'fi"cra 2.9.2002. Sefertdant, thereafter
'g_'_'e;fé§m§r:j'e:§:.'}*iE.I§"::";.23f and §xs.93 to ms were marked.
éxarnined himseif and difi act grodagce any
decumgfits, in the Appefiate Coazrt.
On consideratic-n of record of the appem and
‘”i;§aat of the T333 Court, £eamed Eudge ef the First Appeiéate
Cmzrt raised the foiiawing poénts fer deterrn’ijatiora:-
/.
‘ “Von record.
11}
questien, which is required ta be answered by e><an§'§–::ér3g
the reco rd.
13. Though the evidentiai burdefi is
on the defendant by virtue of Se<:§:E<§"r3"1«1$(5.Aa) if V
can be rebestteci by the ;ciefer$Ai3er:z:;:_TV_A':by T»'s;_§'§o'wEr:g"
preponderance of probabi¥ities;."'-that, V"eugiéx,T¢v:)%{;ei5'e'rétien V
shown in the cheque f’é;3’§” Once convincing reb:.:tta£
evidemzeefls ‘4:.ézci-rviAL§ce”d m%% accepted by the Ceisrt, having
.é’V’i’eg;”a”‘:”§f1 we cégiemstances of the case and the
‘;2%9ep{é;§d::e:rev§1eef-.:’:$f probabiiitiesg the arms of prcsef shifts
baek._to whe has men: the iegai burden. In sacs’: a
“”‘~.. “‘;<;i.t;;atier2.,Zthe gresumptfiafi under Section 13.8 of the Act
be ciaimed by pieintiff. Since both eartées have
– Hadgéuceé evidence, the Court has is censider the evidence
Whether the first appeuafe Ceurt has
V
13
cheque with aégnature was-éobtained frem him
has icdgeé a créminai case agaésst the p3ain€.§Vf§f’:’e:..§:.z:%’ éfif
connection wéth the said intzidar:-‘:-;’..bAA’V..f:Te;s
cheque-Ex.P:i is 9? him and his sigvmizlzjaté a;>;§e;afs’ t’h é:%.é§v:§”‘–..L
and that the writings on the”c%.{§§que ‘and
that he is not due the’:a.q7′:az;«:*2’§’$’i:s–:{3§~f~.§§§L’-£31 tflévvéhééziue. En
cross-examinatécn he h.aT§Q.AAfg’a:_§’:;§honnur pofice
had tcdd one Afimed
Basha and be taken Eats custsdy
by ‘1Z}”€€f”V.’iZ5′{3V3’§’i’.*’.:{éIVf, He has éenéed
suggesfiong pat. admétteé that, Abdué
Razakiftad ‘é’erzt’a.V;1votA§Ac.,é,’*i.% which, he sent a repéy. in his
“‘«..evic3é}}c;.;–..ibefgareAéfiawppeiiate Court, he has stateé abeat
_1’_:h’e: :§S3i.3;é:L$f ¥’t£%3Vt§{;& ‘:9 the pofice, issue 92′ nofice ta PW.2,
tfia _c_.’ s’*§r¥1f{1a’iV :é’,:_aée and other aspects.
:iI’3.__ 3~ The émportant documents which have been
by first appeiiate cent”: are Ex.P1, the chequa,
‘ notice dated 18.12.1994 of the péaintiff to the
. defendant, Ex.P4-, reply dated 33.12.1994 E? defendant ta
piaintiff,
EX.D3,
14
notice datefi 1G.8.§,99-4 issued by
defendant to Chief Secretary and pofice authorEt§es,u %§.::§_;”;’E)_V2,
Ex.P9, the private cempkaint, Ex.D3B
31.f.Q.i994 to defendants from Abdui Razak >
may of notice dated 12.1O.1994;,’_frQr:fi iiéfefzfiafaf*V.t<:;_'_V€éh»ei'
Subfiinspector of Poiice, Kud:fen3_ukh"p9'§ice staf1v'dV;2A. 3
16.
The reasonaancfi ;cVi;”–<.+:.i1tfs*3s"tai}ces é'w§%-Echvévefgééed
with was Court to decrée":T;:AeLsu.%€:[a .
(a)
T¥1fer.e is nq_’Aééf§é’:§:§rec e”‘~é¥:r.._r.iéfe%£’dant’s side that,
._ -‘obtained to piaintiff with
Kundué E%sfiu.éfi’cé’Vand coercion by using peiice
thr’ea i;’.’
flD’e_fendant did not compiain er issue natice ta
, f”‘A..,_p3=é: i~e*:”{:iff, Emmediateiy on reiease of his fans, to
‘-rféturn the bfiank stamp paper and cheque
in
taken in the {}{§i§C8 statian.
Defendant dis not ‘caka any action agaéfist
p¥air2t§fif apprehending that, piaintiff may use
the btank signed paper fag fabricating
33.}
17.
15
clscument and that onty to escajp;g_ ffr7oEi1VVT..’t%afe
iiabééity to pay the amcrunt, ae:=¢n¢a%n:%::;ea*
campiaint aftey raceipvjiicmésf”r:«e:xtE’§:;e
Reaszms and :;_i:”c:,:m:~;’£:’a’*r:ces,»”‘§f¢.¥§:ic§”z ézuaeséfl
weighed with the iower apufie:.i:_%V’a’:e_V féjverge tine
decree passed by Tri’a .§4_._i;our.§ agid §:E’s:~;2iss thHeHs:.zEt are:
-(3)
Ex’AD3 that, éefendaat
?EaS};§s¥:.;:.2§£3« r%g:i:’ice4_”tg$ ‘ffiaviefi Secretary, Qirector
1 Géf:-f«era”i7’ <'af_V":"»'*§_i§c,:':é,"ABaéjgéicre, Deputy Inspects;
fGé.rra;'a"E <§»¥*v+?"ev!.i_ce,-'Bangaicare, Superintendent of
'A Po}§'cé;"..C§1§:§8 is {M
csfvi the endersement issued by the
V{)Erec’£or Genera! cf Police to the efiect that,
‘§}’a’é’ concemed persans have been directed to
éake suitabie action. Theugh PW,.1 has stated
that he has net been sent with a copy :2? the
said netice, mat that does net matter, since,
{éefendant was making afiegatéeszs against
poiice aiieging that a Mani cheque and
(E3)
16
signature on a btaak stamp paper w”a5é*%”a3;7e::
by Baiehcrmur pcsfice and u’2’f’;:ée;”-
circumstances, he c.’o’i}§’:E«. ‘nfit _. %ia*%;r.e V’ vbieeéz
expected to gend Va co§’;:__é’::_:d:”Tth;a:’t’ _£A}é2’~t%1e
Ex.D3, the parti§c’u§ ‘a7’;<s» ofhxthg' cA?§§§:q£}{é4'V"{'E)5<fi.P1) " '
have been rngnti Q21'éCi: " V' ' .
The piaéntifffias the ammmt was
9a.i5% f£t§. S«. iG.1§94 and the
Eh’?-*;q{.§e”?i.;aV5″-iyééfzV__E§si:ed.V_to him Easter and it is
” -§{:a1;éz§ :*%;3.2;§*3.§-4′,wheiieaa the nofice E:.~<:.93 Es
" 4:da€éc§:t '£Lf§V.a~., i%9"'__'i.'e., two menths prior t0 the
V '*–.;:§%Eav§r:V§if§ A;;_a'¥;r'§sf'é5g money to defendant anfi ?3?'}i$
.__c%rcA:i'rn~s%:.a.='zce has not bear: axaiained by tha
"'%:v"p§'a§—-nt§fi', which $5 a strong circumstance is
V' that EXP: has been signed by him when
1 <5)
% E: was biank.
Defendant has flied a créminai case against
piaintiff and PW.2 on 5.9.1995. making
aiiegations that his signatures are iaken by
Balehennur poiice on a blank Teque area biank
(d)
1?
stamp paper and further fabricated_.£:}§}5;»V,§if’eisfz;;§*;_
paper irate an agreement of sa§eV__e’E2:j eiV’_::.Ewee,ee..: _A V’
fer Rs.5G,0O0/«~.
The defendant has _pree4u;ed._ abuzf§3’e.:§?;~ :*;’:a:teé’§avE”
to show that he §é’e§’-.ta%:~;E1:.1;1’«she3~sgt~e:at'<«.ee't£_'€e.._Y§f3$ issuee to ?SE.,
§(u_e%*e.%fi'£ékh 'pi:v¥_iV€e.is;te'i:£eVe' afiegérzg that, ee Es
"t;$§_,giapg"::f:-ige :':ar§'estEiéfendant iiiegaiiy, which
' 4.eerreVbe'§Vaéeé_:Afhe..–~aiiagatien of defendant in tee
"'w:i_i"ti:fé4rst..:épp.§§’%aA:ej
Court has fecorfied reascms fi3:i__revafi*:=~.;§r’:’*~;3 the»f§%-ztfiinfg 03? 5.215′,
T:’ia3 Ceurt. The iower Appe£3ét’£2_”:C::»_L;rt V§§a,é«_V’fev{1n§i’:§the case
of gfiaintiff to be faise.’
19. In t_ha=;:”,:; :vi’::~,:£>$E:§s§;§s£$-Ti-§§5ER, reported in {$396} 8
set 5535, Tit%Jhéas h_a’i§§_’Vthat.rVV”V’v
1f1;__..’;.,f¥’%*:e%_.’f.?éjVEs§t’y._§§the piea of the piaéntiff aiso
_wou§é=.be a_’Ea%:t_dr’~»’;’Té be considered by the court.
:*a;L::{§*e::.:§f__ p.:’ocf is of academic interest when
$s;z*§«.;:Ife:*:ce was adduced by the parties. The
a’is. required to examine the evidence am
co.§j§V§1fiVe.% whether the suit as pieaded §r: the gzfiaént
zhés hfiéen estabfished and the suit requires ta be
A. éécreed or dismissed.
2A”§f§1 e’AAreasor:ir:g of the Eewer Appaiiate Court is bases an
x wsroper asjprecéation of both era} and documeatary eviéanca
an record. It has is be neteé that, name sf tha éecuments
\
/.
3.9
produced by the eefeedant are under eheiienge e’f§”~.the
piaintiff, The iewer Appeéiate Cour: has dravvr:e.~«%~sé4fe.%{e’_e%:{efe..«
flowing from the circumstances appe;:_;§_i’e;;. Tfiéje ‘:%’:ef_
ciecumentary evédence produced thet.§«ef’enfie*:§fi;~.u§*i,e’?€§e;«
it cannot be said that the tiers; ap;§’eAi_§ete caeere:-:’e’2§a’s e;?’:ee’*–.e
perverseiy and arbétraréty in ‘§*e>.};’e’rs§ng Vft%:_e”‘f§.%:zdi.%:;g 5? tee
Trial Court. Since, V d.éVe’i§_%ee’e::;Vt.er§.__fest§mony being
in confermity:_%A%itj§a.e1.the “deurfie%’1t§’ ;5′:”evr_i…t.:;}.i:ed, the inferences
drawn,’Vejf’VTthee.:ei:;we§?V§ie’pe§:i.’ate is justified.
29.” has admitted that he paid the
em.a§§§’:ite’to the an 5.103.994. His case was that,
afiegznt was paid by him to: the defendant, the
eifiequev was issued. Admittediy, piaintéff did not
heel” :0 pay to the defendant. Accerdéeg to him,
%’:ee-{aieed the ameunt from his brothers and reéatives. To
:°a:éiv%.é’nce the man, it cannot be expected that, a persee wiié
‘Waise funds from his famiéy members and reiativee, wézéch
circumstance itseif creates a strong does: 11 the ease e?
/.
21
eroduceé by both eerties in the aepenate Court, en cerrect
appreciation ef the era? and decumentam; evédencefithe
appefiate Cezzrt has set aside the decree passec3__’44’fo§;f”:E”;fi.e%V.
Court.
21. Both the parties havevied :e’v§.éie%ice’§az:E’t?z'”%ege”efi_:«
E><.P3. and on aepreciatien eraiwi 2n_d";éieV;e«mVeeta%y
evidence by the §ower AppeiiaVteVV'jCe_:::t_», §t"ha«é:fece%rded the
finding that Exfil waéeot€;;si;,3eci'"'~f;;:i:"a.n'y censéderation
amount receivecieed t:1'a%~,– f5{*.eV"p'§'*e_s'i«2f.I'n;::'iiié3":'é. under Sectéee
118(a:)\_ef. the"§£a<;*:..1:faeae'-$3.339-eared. Suit was dismisses
since t%i1e__'_'pieifitéfie':2~e§'*..»e."4fei%ed ta prove payment ef
consffeeration tie the defendant. Hence, Ea the facts
.aje£i_V ci_Va?c:;s:fe§;=,"%c:-znces cf the case, the decéséens as': which
re'!'Ti–aVe§§:»,%,ag.[§:;"';3Iace€i by the ieamed ceunsefi for the
apffieiiaeé "hes no appiicatéon. The orai evidence of ewe:
Being i :§ eonfcrmity with the documentary evidence ptazzeé
'tiim and the aepreciatéon of evidence by the Eower
'Tsppeiiate Court being in accordance with éaw, the fmdmgs
and concéusions recorded by it, as not ca?! foxinteflerence.
/'
22
First agpeiiate Court taking Erato corzséderaticn the V{ja’a’é,::.’f::”e’~.’:T:f§aS
evidence on record, has assigned reasons ast:~§_é~.
‘Mai Court decree required reversai. _…?{_i?§e.:e*~.[.:’is._ sic”
perversity er iiiegaiity on the pal?!
Ceurt in passing of the Empugflned é}’z:_fl;m+antv*’V3A:§:;’i ézéeéigréi-:-;_ “~
Substargtiai quastson of Eaw is écicgsrclingijf ‘a.:§ffs*.né’§eréfi.
For the foregoing’–.4é§%s;u:§sEc;’évL”a§3d..ifeaserzs, ihe apgaeaé
is devoid of merit asf:r.i… ijs–.. In the
cErcumstancgsi_ioffifife cé-;–se}_ b’art4_E’es ‘t<§"i::e'ar their ressective
Sd/-'
Iudge