it; THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
fiATi3D 'I'H§S THE 5TH DAY 0;? NGVEMBER, 2t:ga2:'j««.._T'~V--VV
EEFGRE 9 V" "
ma HQNBLE MR.JUSTI{_Z}E.Ii_ RA:q§AN;§;a;g. "
cxflar. APPEAL 15?63}'2£70 $ A'
BETWEEN:
A T NARAYANA GOWDA
AGED AEGUT YEAIE
R/A ATE-EULI
AGALAGONDIPOST
KOPPATALUICL , V'
cmCKMANGALQR'5.p1sIR1'cT' -1: _' 1 APPELLANT
(By ;;s,u;=;AI;>'as' H R SA'IH'1'AP'AL )
Arm; V . 'V
K {.jS§JBEARAYA' ~ V' V'
V . .. ..... .. N
A£';EE} ABOUT'
' ' 12:; cr§~1;Ea;:'A1:;t ~\(:'L1,Ac;E
L"-JsgIAJt;;i,I1~q*:"2;2-1;-ix'::.? Li"
AGALA CORT}? OS?
KOPFA '}_"A Llffi
' . V CE{iC£ZI~4;}NGAi£}I€E; DESIRICT F1135-»PUN{)ENT
V' ' ' j .. (33: says : "£8 MAHABALESHWAR & s K SI-ETIY, ADV}
CRLA. FILEI} Ujfi 3738 CREE?' FRAYING 350 $5137!' ASIDE THE
(:11? ACQUTITAL 'OT. 3-9-2095 PA$ED BY THE
C.}.(]R.[}N.) & }'1v1FC,SRH~JGERI,. Ha: C'CZ.NO.165g'0}, ACQUITIING "mm
'V RESPONDENT~ACCUSED FOR Ti-E OFFENCE 13/ U/S 138 OF NLACT.
E’->
THIS APPEAL CQMING on FOR Di(3TA’I’ENG J:,:v§3{:;M_Bm
THIS DAY, THE COURT DPZLIVEREZD ‘THE FQLLOW1N,f3;_ 4’ » ‘ L. V.
iQ
The appellant} complainant cémé’ . ,,
appeai chaiierzging the judgiifiéhi V-iérdcx L’
JMFC Srifigcri in Q_.C.No.}f{i:’§/’?4D{3.,§ &;as.c«..1 _ Q3209-2005
acquitfing thc 1″CS'{3{}I1(vié’i’TlV:’3: jfci’. fliigc; mmishabls under
Section :33 of z~:’..{. 4:31;: respondm-t for
the abtzjvé” 0:fi:E’:i1v::e7″–ai1{i ‘tihéct the responécnt. to pay
doub1é”Atl1£:4«;:h::qué ‘ame1ir2§
2. ‘Ii;I;;r: bv;:*i¢f -fa-é..*,s: ‘xfisftlze cast: of the appellant. herein is
2 thJfgt;’«:hc; a ‘}§i’iva.t§:¢cv;oxx1p1ajnt before tbs triai court against
‘ –.rm~:};g{3::1{§~f.§fit._for the offence plmisbable unclcr Section 138
‘cf. i’=¥’.’i.v’A$iI’L:ai:{iV’vSecfion 420 of IPC, c:0ntez1ciing that during
th€44″Lf-;s§.wéé:}c of January 2001 the accusedlrcspondcnt has
., is’suzcd iil1& cheque bearing N(}.313(}83, dated 11-06-*2GO1 for
R:*$§.5A,88,917«O0 drawn 033 Kaznataka Bank Ltd., Jayapura,
u ‘Kappa taluk, in discharge tbs amount due by him, when tbs
saié cheque presented for encashme-ni the same came to bc
dishonoured with enclcnrsenzent “lnsuficient Fmldsf “The
cheque is reported to be lost” and “payment stogspaaféi
Drawer”. Therefore the appellant got issueti ~
dated 18-06»-2001 cailing upon thc_,mspQnd§:4ij”f u V’
the cheque amount, but 1:116 respokldfiiii §a_ic;i~
izssucd untcnabk: reply: 1{en¢e–.._V;he Vp2:ivaMte–.V: ”
compiaint against the 1*csponci_§i1ui'{.V the.’a§<§_f§':sai:£il ofiencs.
T0 prove his case t11eVa1:.).'pcH2§;1t;Vj_g@;t' as PW.1 and
also exan1i11e:d,_two v¢–i1;13w.§':S':§.ui=:;'9V&' got. marked
docun5;§z1t:3– I On the othcr hand the
mspoxzdémté' as D,W.1 and 3150
cxaxgzificd o*&1ér., _V7'i.7's7itI;V1};":3sc::s as £).W.2 to 8 and got marked
E39. 1 is 7. '1' he hial court after going through
A the argumcnts ef counsci for both the
pa:L?ies,___v'ac;§.i:ittcd the respo11::ie3::t far the offence punishabic
u . " ' — VV * Z Secfion 138 of NJ . Act, hence fhti
complainant has come up with this appcttai.
3. Admjttadiy the cheque in question came to be
dishonourcci when §3I’€$(‘:I}ifid for cncashmcnt, fuxfher there
is no dispute that thfi appellant has ”
mandatory provisicrns of the Act before
According tr) appellant the
question towarcis repaymcfli lcgfiily debt. ” L’
Ofcourse under the N ,1 :_Act _;;§resQ1in1;fti(31; §avaiLab1e
in favour of the comphifigint iSS116d the
cheque towards debt mad
the burden the same. In the
instant mspondcnt herein is
that 11¢ AV jchcqutz in question to the
appeflazfii ihcré recoverable debt under thc-;
saznej,’ that $4.:-, lsvrzysiv ihe:: “=’:h;éq11c in questien along with other
” ” 3t5Lq1ii:¢&’che(«1fi€$5.« ami cheque leaf and smrcral other
While he was iravefling by bus from
Hé1:7–§1ad3;. Sflugmi Via, [Kaiasa and in that raspe-:2: he
‘–=. -mgcd”ésompiaint before the Kama Polio»: station as per
if is his further cam that afmr receipt {If copy csf legal
nfiéticc-:]Ex.P.8 11$ filed complaint Ex.D.ff’> against this
appsflani in rsspsect of illegal possession of the cheque in
g
“x
arid E)-.:.D.7 medi(;i%ag’ bank of the:
hospital 1€specti*g&}}f. ufigxtz complaint
Liodged by $16 menfionetd the
flumberéf with ether chcqufi
1111II1?Z)t?X’$. 4′ . A’ Z 2
h1x3’i.ig1iA iii: §§;”occ€dh1gs the écfensc taken by
flat: ifzspéiidént is ceiiéistsnt and there is corr0″b0rati{)n sf
iiwcra naming piaced 033. record by the
app£:*}jVa11tV.£<–:f " Estiifiputc these documcmts produccd by the
xfispendefii, the stand of that: appellant. that all thcastt
« do<::ufi;:nts are ce11co<.::r:d cannot ht: accepted, especiafly in
' iiviiziisz Gf E§x.D.} dated 14–O5~2G{}Z which is a lztttcr Written by
u tha complainant to time: respendeni: Where 1:16 dtzmandad E116:
facts bef-are court is fatal to the case cf thct apg¢flé2£i1§§"Vfl.';h¢
itnzrdcn cf proof on the accused to rebut —
appetllantf ccmpiainant is less unfiéi' NZI.
has primawfacie shown heibre t he: .1313"
pleaded by the comp}ainant.Vi3_vL"i':Q_t f1’ct-;;t’ i1; :;3 é*;2§{fIi€:it£fit ts?”
rebut 81$ evidence 9? “a:ié{.._t13€rr:%a;fL”:r ifis for the
complainaut to prove ‘éasé Liifceésezzabls doubt, but
in 1136 instant case: féiiieci to dischargé
his 11′-I£”D7A.:?’tE’ court that the
msgwfixifini ‘ .. offence punishable under
Section ofvNV.’: v1e1aa’ ‘€d from angle 1 do 11:)’:
gonad in iritxtztfere with the orcier of acquittal
V pas scd_ {E3 court.
this appeal is difimimed as devoid merits.
Sd/-~
Iudge
-ggp