g_NE «. V
1:»; THE HEGH CQLERT 0? KARNATAKA, BAN(f;2£1;dmj- u
DATED THE 29"' DAY 012' 2'<;:~.«:f»"%9 :1
THE HQNBLE MR' JT;§$TICE**LV; E§AR.AYAI§A* SWAMY
CRIMINAL
BETWEEN
1 SR1GNEi~:A¢U.V"""-'._ A y
RESZ9..I?¥G"~!3'f' ~
£:.M.}%I.R0AB
1NI)11a:Ab:AGA*R».%_A"»'* M % %
8AI*$£'sALt3RE-3'8 '
- V 4' % APPELLANT
(By M/3_§)UA A$SOCIATL?s'}~-"
1 M /sA;s£2oC;1¥:S;s POINT
* CARRY'"§NG[f.}N BUSINESS AT
Ni). 42», _5ff17}* CRQSS, €3.R*S'}.'REE:T,
_ VASAN'i'HNAGAR,
fl BAN{};%1,QRE --- 560 352
~ A REERESENTED BY' ITS PARTNERS
'mi 3.8 JAIPRAKASZ-£ A
SRE as R§&JESH
SR1 3.3 SHAELENDRA
RESPONDENT
” ;;’B~§; SR1; VIPIN KUMAR JAIN & C 5: RAJU : ABVOCATES }
“K
E»-3
e1″1<:ash1'11em: but the cheque was returned 0:: theilzat.
mg «ACCOum Ciomdaa, Thereafter, desgite se_:f§{ii<:':::?t:.0f
Izcatice {he respondent failfid {(3 pay; Ei§::§CéVVV 'the T
complainant 'filed the c0mp1aj.nt;
3. The respondent t:}:1afi 1:}ixer& was no
legaily rceceverabie debt pay’é._’ee.leh’ ib: i:riii:vV.{:£§r;’;.fj1ainant and the
cheque in qt;es£§::on:;£,*;f§1::;_i3s:.i:¢Ei as .a”‘se<cmi"ity for the amcmnt
paid by tifie c. §>n«5:_’Sri K K1’iShIi’1aIi1’LlI”th§?, wim
Whfiifl the “a1:¥pe13a.*1{ “-«.g<.=§i;ééred into 5316 ageement for
purchage ':33 301536: pf'0j;:efiy fit Bangalors: at the instance ef the
'Vre $p01§§€ia1':1iifi:§;. fligiltimateljg, the said iiransactign was failed and
said._ 301$ the proparty in favcur sf third
;3artie;é'*~ ma amount ti: thta appeiiant, The
Ssiying that he has misplaced the cheque issued by
I» .:;£'i'f£€'AAffv¢'.i" Sj}A'{i}Il{3.€3I'£5CS, did not retuim the cheque, but misused the
and fiisd the present complaint.
K
4. This appeiiant in arder is grove fllias
exanained himself as PW-1 anti gm marked ”
behalf of the respondsnts, one sf T as, DW-1 and two witnesses gs; marked EXDZ to D9. _
5. Initially” the c9§1p1’ain§.V’ix2a$” e:§’is};_12issé5ci~ 1335 the trial
Court and on the appeal this Court set
aside -remanded the: matter for
I’ecnsiderat:i’a1%1.%~ V b0th the parties led furiher
gvidancgif’ The statéjfiént: of the accused L1] 3 313 Cir RC was
nirscfiréééi. Court by the impugmd juégmant has
_ the complaint filed by the appeilarai;
n 6, Enfifder t0 censtitute an efiénce 11/ S 138 ai’ N I Act,
$516 ‘”i1fi g’ré.’=Cii€nf:s required ta be proved are that there 13 legally
T ‘fééfififirablc C1633: due {ram the accused arid in dischaxge Gf the
same, the cheque was issued and the Same came to be
éishanoured and in spitsi of the notice issued and after
aliewing the Statutory period, the respondent
cemizaly the same.
7 ‘ The appellant Pwll ~ad1fiitEed VV”‘fi%é:§s£§cti0:i’y
betwsen him and K A’ “<':Iie Hégreeamerit
entered intc: between He has also
admitteé the to him by
stating that V. V.t"}:fj§N/:€;r:gir1a1 Sale agregment,
which hgfi?éVV7réCeived the consitieration
under has also failad tn mentian the
perioé fag:-V v5zhi< §h hintéréééit was due and what was the rate
:' .0f'i111:§§fe:étf'7'J:'Z'?ie.prfifiifiifition unciar Section 139 of N E Act is a
I'€::b¢*.%1Z'€.E:f;Vbf7i{;§::V'}'}%f€%Iwi7'i;"fi;§'i'.i(}I}. "}"h.e appellant has rslied upon
V V' EXP} };«_& the pircmste ~—- ccmsideratian receipts in favaur czf
..1, I::}; "the camplaint it is egtated that accused gsersons
_afsza§.1é{1-Aioan autherizing PW—-1 :9 give cheque in favour Sri
VT _§3i1aiie:1dr3. a sum 0}? Rs.5,5G,{)€3Q/-. But: in E§<:.P11 82; 12 K
3 iirifiinlarnurthy is alga one of the parties :9 this documents,
€:h:=:reb§; the appellant has givam a go by to the complaint
<
averments that amused authmrized PW»1 to pay
threugh thequa drawra in favour of one V' S ._
8. AI’3.Gt}.’1€I’ docturztsnt whigh ré”:liedTfl{1f;;;:i§1f;L
apgellant EXPS the report: of heid to
be not helpful to the Va?;37;;4g”)e_1lé§,:1t.j_»’_»»gr0unci that the
respondents have f~3’L1{3C€S:SfL1} EXP1 was not
issued for Tfie appeilant further
relitzd upon gagtigzlexzf; of conviction betwearz the
same ;::artie?fi,_ 4′ In ‘£336 ~-é.ai&”–éasé {ha accused had most Eefi any
évidence’ which is_r§1-‘ft: sé the present case. Therefosra, the
.§a3;<';';2 ha reiied upen ta canvict the
:s'€:S}}or:;1;e7:1¥: $'–,:n present case. £')W–2 has stated. in her
'depcrsiEia11,___*if::;1t~"the amused was not aumarized ta isaue EXP}
H fies»-the bank account of the parimersliip flffliw SW43
'EA;'§;s €1i<:;p(';sed that the cheque was returned 011 the ground that
T payment was Stepped by the drawer.
<
tiistniréssd A ~_ , A' *
9. in the circumstances, I am 0f the View
court has ecmsidered all aspects 0:” thréi »iif1é;tut3r”–«and
come to the concluaion that fl1e§3.ppe1iaui’–has to ‘7g’fi’a~$}€:._VV
the guilt of the accused. Cm
have rebutted the ;)re$u3:i3.:a.1’::ti.0n:”A;1@ ‘Eat. The
ingredients that are éifance 1.1/3 138
of N I Act are n_Qt_.:Vé;é’:§.<§£I§;1i$;i*1e<33 is justified in
passing the" for no iI1t€:I"f€I'€I}.Cf:
from this
}{§_i I:"1u .%:i1eVz*'e;s_tV_.:i11';1, 1:313… appeal fails and it is ascerciingly
S&!ae
Tuéqé
AKD