IN THE HXGH COURT E)F KARNATAKA AT___
BANGALORE 7 E'
DATED THIS THE 14"' DAY OF DECEMi3'E'R?
BEFORE-.....
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE HULU v1ADi.gG;i"EAixiESi1ig
CRIMINAL APPEA\;lg~.N0ti89 OFT:
BETWEEN:
M.Renu1-iappa,
Aged about 36 _ve-Hrs, V
S/0 Muda1agi;'ig(xwfda, _ A ~ A '
Kasaba HQ.bii";TLiif.L!Veke1fe__T2giuEt; .
TumakurflD\i§$1'i?t. it V'
..APPELLANT
(By M.ViniHyaf'KVe.ei§thy;« L'1I_}kW&i C0., Adv.)
AND: E it it E E
Naitfiiiiidaiah, ~ it
' AR"etd. Village Accet1'r§t:int,
' VVC/oVE~{E.arayz1ri£1ppa's House,
A JAQgiha.lfli~,_.CN*~Hal1i Taluk,
'--Tumakuru':Disu~ict. ..RESPONDENT
(Biz Sfi;Satyanarayana.P.Hegde, Adv.)
._ V This C1'i_m_ina1 Appeal is flied under Section 378(4) of
7.Ci".'P.C. praying to set aside the impugned judgment dated
EV 2.3.2009 passed by the C.J.(Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Turuvekere in
it C.C.No.68/2007 acquitting the respondent/accused for the
offence P/U/S. 138 of N.§.Act.
\)<.'
2
This Criminal Appeal coming on for hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the complainant challenging.’the__:oi’§ler
passed by the learned JMFC, Turuvekere ..
dated 2.3.2009 in acquitting the a’c_cus._ed,3and. idi.isinais’siijn.g, ‘the
complaint.
2. tl;e_c_oinpl’ai1ia’1rt,_ accused had borrowed a
sum ‘Complainant and had issued a
cheque””_dra§vn Chiklr insufficient funds. Thereafter, on issuance of
legail ilioitice’, iffor:inon–payment, the complaint was filed. The trial
Court, afterenquiry, has dismissed the complaint. Hence, this
appeal.” ii
3. Heard.
W
4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant,
issuance of cheque by the accused and also thevpsigfiature
thereon is not in dispute. The trial Court, only _
that there is material alteration on the ychequej’ ld’i.sn1iss.¢d”‘
the complaint without any basis, whpen:.’_’itt~is clear that eivefiiiirl
words the amount is mentioned .als~e.Rs.90;0Q(fi;’–_ xir1~.the.;c’iieq'{te.
5. According to the learned :Couns,el.Vlfo_r the accused, he
has borrowedllo.nIiyi-Rysflf),QCOfj »lis.90,000/- and that the
figure ~”‘l””‘is *’ 9”’ ~ ‘complainant for unlawful gain.
_V6. ()ri”pefrusal ol’.tiie..iudgment, it is noted that P.W.l has
yadmitteid that somellllalterations were made in respect of date,
:a’tI_1ott11tlle–t.c’., ijn.,the cheque by the accused himself. He has also
ad”m_itte_’d’ -that there is difference in the ink between the
n ‘ehanpdwfriting in the cheque and the signature, although he has
fldeposed that the cheque was filled up by the accused himself.
W’
1
7. On perusal of Ex.P2, the ‘qheque, it appears that there
is material alteration and that the figure .1. is tnade..Vas.4<_'9.,V_ for
which even an endorsement has not been made. Hence',.'i.s
no error in the finding of the tria]…Court._""Ho'vi?.ever,t4_in t-he
interest of justice, since the transacti«on7i_s the
accused is directed to pay "in: three'
months, failing which, he has,to'"un_der'go_simpieirnprisonment
for a period of one month. Rs.1,000/–
shmlhzfirfifiaiuimesm&nmuiRsiQQwyw$pHbepmflto
the complainant. before
the trial Court be retuirned._to’ the
8:;ij’i?X;3p.eal ‘fiigniaccorditngly, alliowied in part.
Sd/*
I UDGE