IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALGRE
DATED THES THE 27'??? DAY or? AUGUST 20": o- -.
BEFORE .
THE 'HON'BLE Mr.
Criminal Appeal No. 1l;485i;'of~i20l()e2L ll
Between: V
Shri A.R. Kashinath,
S/o. Sri AN. Ramaehan-dtja Settjf, *
Aged about 40 years, V' I 5 ' A ll
R/0 M.C.C'.. 'A' Block, _
Davangere. _ '
V 1' ...Appe1lant
(By Sri S.V; {irtVh)l};~~.Ad"foe.ate}'
And: ... 1. «. . ' .
Smt. BM. ,' ----
W/o. Sri.>B.M. Jaga'deesh*,.___
Aged about 40* years, I "
R/0. Sindi Re'si.den.cy, '
Nearflukkar Colony,
V' Koii~flPlur;al, """ " 'V
V. H Mahai astra
...Respondent
**=i=***
T'hi's'ei§1. A. is filed Under Section 378 of Cr.P.C by
xthe Advocate for the Appellant praying to set aside the
Jxidgnieni and Order dated 22.06.2004 passed by the JMFC-
_ 'cam, Davanagere, in C.C.No.59/O1 and convict the
' respondent for the offence P/U/S 138 of N.I. Act R/W
_ Seetion 420 of IPC.
This appeal is coming on for Admission, this day, the
Court delivered the followings-
I
#0
I
:JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed under section
Cr.P’.C., against the acquittal of the K
offence punishable under section’AA»i:3’8
Instruments Act in CC
JMF C, First Court at Davanagere. ‘There of 55
days in filing’ the appea-l_. of service
of notice had not entered:.appearanoe»;:..’jfllierefore, delay
in filing appeal’
2. tori’ appellant is absent.
H V impugned judgment.
As per easelliolf’ltlheytfornplainant, respondent on
executivng on ‘-dernland promissory note in favour of
borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/»~ on
11A9’9»%i’«.._nTh”eVisaid amount was paid through cheque
_ bearing,.,.’\N0.:O88991. The respondent was regularly
lithe interest. That on 15.4.1999, respondent
lh;aVd”islsued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/~ drawn
9 infavour of the complainant which on presentation was
9. dis~honoured for want of funds. When the matter was
f\3. ‘Q
promissory
informed to the respondent, she requested to rewpfesent
the cheque on 24.5.1999. The cheque
dishonoured. Therefore, complainant initiated: cof_mp1ai’11t_p V’
against respondent under sectionM9O0of7Cr-;P~.9C.’- _
4. It is the case of the corriplainant also
evidence of the comp1ainant’cat:h»at’ had
executed on sum of
Rs.I,00,000/– Von. to this,
respondent 22.6.1994 the
complainaht to respondent for
repayment _ Complainant owed to
responder._1t.V 9′ 2 2
5 5. Theuconipiainant has not produced on demand
“note said to have been executed by the
I complainant has not produced any
doci1–.me.rita_rS} evidence to prove that after the date of
:_utr.an’saction ie. on 22.6.1994 respondent had executed
‘th’e”‘acknowledgement of debt[1iabi1ity. The complainant
9 ‘having alieged that the respondent had executed the
note while borrowing a sum of
§\_?,
Rs.1.00,000/-, has not produced the said promissory
note. The complainant has not produced any
documents to show that respondent had made p,ayrri’er:t
or has executed the acknowledgement of _
22.08.1994. The disputed cheqne was’ fiise§:ed«e *
15.4.1999 i.e. after the lapse of
of loan transaction. On 15;Zl.’1~999 lw-hlen all,e’gle._d«-‘cheque
was issued, the debt was ba1ired_ by tinie;.,E;Ve_r?1 if it is
assumed that the chec\1v.epwas_ the respondent,
it was not iss1,ied.__to (lisVcl1a:;’g’e’«.l¢-gall-y«recoverable debt.
The Learned Tiv4iallllVJ’ai?iige lnihasjljl’rghtljilllllacquitted the
accused. Therefore.’ I”do not grounds to admit
the appeal. Accordinéllydtlie”appeal: is dismissed.
…… – Sci];
3UDGE