IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 29"' day of October, 2019 C
Before
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HU.:;1}VAI91 CG .e1e«i;14'1es;1':C«' h C
Criminal Appeag, % 7201 12010
Between:
Mahadevamma, 40 yrs
W/o Nagaraja K M
# 669, Madegowda Nilaya y .
New Street, New J ananatha Colony
Yelawala, Mysore Ta!_;uk__ " .
(By Sri Shantesh if V C
And:
Rarnu, 47 yrs' C ._
Helper 'D' (CM) »
RMRPBNohw 'C
Ratnahaigly; YeEawaia..P O
C CM.YySorz5e._RF*aI?4]? C '" """ " 'V
my sx1m§{asi,t3 Adv.)
Respondent
'A ,AC;5pe21_l.i'se:{?iEe;d under S.3'78(-4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
V prayingto set aside the judgement dated 7.6.2010 in CC 676/2009 by the
.. _l_'Ayddl..Civ'i£vJi;dge & }MFC, Mysore.
" --.Th'e Appear} coming on for Aglmission this day, Court deiivered
_ 'the following: pg}/'
Ix)
JUDGMENT
Appeal is against the order of acquittal passed by the I
Judge & JMFC, Mysore in CC 676/2009 on 7.6.2010.
In connection with dishonour of the cheque issL1ed7b:y V’
for insufficient funds, complaint came tohle’l’i}e_d’..pbefore”lthe_v;Tl’\}lFC’.
Mysore. It is alleged, accL1sed had borrowedfa of
I 1/2 year back and failed to pay theisame is’
issued. Hence, the complaint” The 1riallce.u;tat’ter inquit’y,”holding that
the compla.i’nan’i*-failjed e:;:ae.11s–h that”‘s’helV’had lent loan of Rs.l7,000/–
to the acci:._se.d._at afiyfjAp¢i;1::”of:” time and that there is no legally
enforceable debt; dismjssved A’|;l’.1CVC=C.lVI’I1}3lEllI’lf.
llealrde the counsel representing the parties.
‘ V’ “Ac’co,rd.ingA. to the appellant’s counsel, the accused has borrowed
the asVn.ot1n{:”a.nd’v signature on the cheque is not in dispute. After
it haVing»..h0rrt)r¢.Ie_d’j’..thle money and having issued the cheque, the accused
.. _. f taken a dilferent stand.
as”
Per contra, counsel representing the accused submitted, Vaccused
had borrowed only a sum of Rs.3,000/– from the
compiainant and not from the complainant. Even before” clourlti, V’ «
there was a proposal for settlement and, thoiacciused is also e’k_i1_’1g out his
livelihood doing cooiie. He has neither borrowe’d_ that ‘amoVu:nt’
has issued the cheque. . ._ a . . ;
Having regard to the factual. back’.gr’ound_Vand circurnstances of the
ease and when the issuance of the Cl’Iifqi’lE::.iS.’V’Ilf:,5:t in dispute, the accused
has to be held guiltyéof the offence; Apart fi’oin..t1i’at, it is also noticed
the accused has. adtrfiittted”regarding «borrowing of the amount from the
husband of the..complain.ai;t.’ _ V
In the circarnstan¢=.es,’:the*~*accused is sentenced to pay Rs.9,000/–
3 Vwithill’-ilillleg’~.fi]011thS. the said amount, Rs.8,500/~ shall be paid to
“E{s.5()0/– shail be forfeited to the State. Appeal is
allowedlin part; ti
SdI§_
Iudge