B S Gopal vs M Krishna Murthy on 26 August, 2008

wfl

 5(E§Y»SRi;~.I§I.$;" CI-EANDRASHEKAR -- ADVOCATE}

IN THE HIGH cam? er IQARNATAKA A1?   "
DATED TI-ES THE 263' DAY oriauqusi'     "

BEFORE

mm HOWBLE ma. JUs'rzcE_<_:.1z. V'  %%

CRMIHAL MFEAL R'O;:i§.}'££1 d§'--29e2''.: '
BETWEEN:   --

3121. BS. GOPAL  

Sff) LATE SRINZVASA RE£}BY "   

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS I " ;  - 
RESIQENG A'?      _ 
27% MAIN, :91? ~::::is';'. " ;  "   .
FERST SECTOR;  I;}';a'(_)'Ji{':"* A'  
BANGAL€}RE"=~«5;6Q 034%.;  " 

         ;  APPELLANT
(BY SR1; A.EvL sURE'S:{V%~R;~;I}13y%  ADVGCATE)

AND:

SR1. M. ~§§RiS¥INA :§?:Umf1:1y

 S;  K. "MARI*g'APPA

AQEQ 'rs.-1:3o1;'1*. era' ifaaans
RE'J.IIJi_i%IG' A?F«._I$3'0,"T~4;E:~
'C' ROAD; 11"fi*4E.¢;' 'MAIN ROAB

v._ """"}*fALAPPA LA.Y('.§U.71', SRINAGAR
 B£&NGALOR3'53,e 550 050.

 RESPONDENT

--   CRLA; FILED UNDER SECTION. 3'?8 CR,P.C. BY

V   ADVOCATE FOR TEE APPELLANT,/s PRAYING THAT

*I'--HI's 'HoN'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE

 ORDER iE)A.TE£):10gi0j20()2 PASSED BY THE XIII
ADDL. c.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.1-42'?7/98,

S  ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT--ACCUSED FGR THE

OFFENSE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF' N .1. ACT.
8/

 



WK

 of the complainant,

2313 CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING on FOR-~,4'§E3iEAul§i:h§iE;' '

THIS BAY, THE COURT MAIZFE THE FQLLOWEIQ ,  

JU'DGL!EH'1'i_

This Criminai Appeal is files}.;1ndéi'.S€ction»'3?§3 _§$f 

Code of Criminal Procedure by t3i1_'1»V1n§el fiféi'  afipeflaut
praying to set asifie the    vvfiaésed by
the X111 Additional cggier  Bangalore
in Criminal     the
raspondent  '  vfiunishable under

Section 13$ ofmsfruments Act.

2. The --3:ujief   iifise of the Complainant in the

 ' ''}A<3joi:r1f are aS..foi1owéiW 

    and the accuses! were known to each

 ""~""other 'anfwi  fiiends for the past several years. 011
2-»1$9'?  accused approached the complainant and
  ioan Of Rs.5{),0{)0/- to meet his urgent famiiy
  On the same day, the accused executed an on

  '»»:ie;'mand promissmy note and consideration receipt in favour

The camplainant appmachfid the
U

 



Exhibits P4 to P43 were marked. Accused was examined as

{}W~1 and Exifihits D-1 and 13-2 were Isrzarked.

4. The sum and substance of the fmdixzg cf the trial 

is as follews;

There is a dispute between the c0n1p}aiI1§1_Ii'E..::a1i§i'V. T' 

accused with regard '£10 seniice: 0f I1ac)ti: §é.A'V  F'r.'!_-1._  

he got issued a iegai notice 1:0 the  é»1_€3Cl1St%(fi1'"  

Registsered Post Acknow1edgn1ent'"£}:ie on i2fi 4'; The

said I1013'oe Was  w4i:vti*1'_'vpn$§",aiV'shara 'party not found
dur£11g de1iv ery"f;i1n€:1 '  his cross exami:t1at:i01i1

submits ,':.-izaf; tfié   on Exhibit P-5 -- the

  g:0verAv}V5%é§i"'cva:ins to him only. A perusal of

 Registered Post Ackncwledgment Due

 ""'V'{*over, Ac-.1_jeariy ~ '(:1A:i:3<iV.1oses that the notice has been returned

" j w'_i__ti*: pestaivfsfmara 'party 1103; found during the deiivery time'.

  his cross examinafion specifically admits that

 "t.*'1 §§waf;§.dress giveii ii} Exhibit 13-5 is the carrect aédress and

 therefore it cannet be said that the notice sent by the

 complainant has not been duly served an him.

13/

 



the conftents of Exhibit D--1 Agreement is in his  H

excegt Exhibit D~ 1(a).

6. The Trial (301111 has further 7f31)S6I:§}'93C£"t1A.}£li,  "

Sectiun 73 of the Illfiiail Evideziée 
was having ample power    and
disputed sigxiature appea:;ifig_'   On
perusal of the  his
vakalath ané    2§}§pe,ar be be similar.
Therefore,    Vaccused has met paid
Rs.50,000/' 'thé  15.4.1993'. Further, on

perusal {cf  '   clearly discloses that the

heid' ii}  §iéi:§veen the compiainant and the

acétlségi  t0 the site for a sala cansideratien of

--  the accused has also returiizezi the said

_. jV»;gs;:tr;;_$.(2L1I1'£ bj7._i{1stahne:1t to the camplainaxlt. If really the

 Egarrowed the hand loan of Rs.50,Q0O/-- 011 52.199?

  the complainant, nntining prevented the complainant ta

 '»»pfQduce any ziocumentary evidence to Show that he had

 aévanced a Egan of Rs.5{},(}0G/'~ to the accused on S.2.199'?.

8/

 



"(A3 Negotiable Insixumcsxnts Act    H

1881). ss. 138, 139, 118 -- Dishonemf oz:f'<:i;'e'a;fi;;e %
-- Prestmpticrm as to -~ Re¥3utfa} cf 
Canying on flansactriorxg:  s'1z;,;i9e--s 
resporadent in Stock Eixchaififigaé:-%pa§ieV gedI}* 
cheque for dischaxge 
dishonoumd ~--- Said   'eight amse

in terms caf traI;sact:io1V1§_}¥~  .fe3u11d in
boek of accgufifis. IIlév.:l4,A'?;;I}§f3:i,:I1i(i2ti'»'.vA?5fi ~IT§§$}§{)Zi1d€I1t for
pireving sgzicf» _- --.1)%:%'f::I1<:.ndé*:1_t't§ }§urr;ie}3 shifted ta him --
C<3zf:s;ri<?1;.3'_<)}f}.4.V:':7.:»3A.(V':(:':;§.se.€i, $51: aside.

%(§3%..%%'%1:2;:1de,nce Act (1 91' 18?2}, 3. 5? --

A  JI1dici3iw.1ioti;c:=:.v~'-- Traxzlsacufms in relation ti) Stock

 reguiated by Statute and Statutory

Rules  '{'i'a.z:sacti0z1s comprising pu:*chaSess and

 *s.:;:.§¢s vhf shares by investors is a matter of

 ..Vt:<;:1*:75iée:1€:e not disputed ~-- Both parties Wouid

have to reiy upon 0:16 £i.1'10{h€I' -- Czmrts sf law

H may take judicial m3I:'i(:é=: caf practice prevailing in

such business."

Q/'



13

2} QOQS AIR SCW 7'38 -- KRISHNA JANARQE§;5;;'§

BEAT vs. DATTATRAYA G. HBGDE, wherein it  " 

under:

"(A) Negetiable Iz1s'.:ru1}:é:i1ts : .  -- ' ~ .. '  ' X  , { 

1881}. S. 139 -- Presumptioigx undér é'.sec:io ::;_¢ ;39=

mereiv raises resum 1:101: it1°&vo1ii' cf h0idef".._§5f" 

cheque that same haé' "ffi'1<..fii$charge
of any debt or _¢'tl}.er  '  lsgaily
1'et:'  Vmaftevf Sf ' 'piesumpfion

uncier S.  

{(8) _A 1 A};'<TELsé'§,*€1£_:iA}:1}aIt:. Izgstrilments Act (26 of
3.88   of cheque «W
Qefence  -«s §€.¢'C'muSed not mquired. to step

. i12?::§:"§vitz1ess~V¥3'G§€: :~  may discharge his burden

 .,  J;;_1atefi$i$ already brought on record --

    A§v'1_j;:3t?£1er statutmy presumption

"s:f<=;bii'tftéd ?3};_?  -~ Must be datermined in View at"

otfizar evviaiciiices an record.

'_   (£3) Negotiabie Insiruments Act (Qé cf
 1 88A1), S. 139 ~ F1'€SUB.'}p1iiOZ1 under -~ Rebuttal --

 V.  of Caurt - Prestimptlan of izmacence as

human rights fifid doctrine of reverse burden
iutreduced by S. 139 »- Shcuid be deiicatsly
€/'



2!)

complaixzazit that thfi accused borzseweéz the 1oa21j"*is

unbelievable and the very genesis of the case«~~.Qjf 

c0mp1ai13a11t crfiates a doubt. The case Gf ti}:-f: d{;fe:§c::.' is" 

discha:1:ge of loan by the accused. J 

disputed by the compiaillant.  it is 'n-:::$t._ ciea,ru.".;f'r:<§x1ia 

evidence adduced by both the  whéthcfuthe Kg-heque
was issued in conuectionviivéth  site tfiézxéaction.
The compiaixlant faiied to  i:;i,§<.~.p__"_£:ase in an

unequivocal te1:*ms.~  --th,c§re gwéfs a. ':i£:;ga}i:x.{_V:véénf0rcea¥31e debt

or Iiabiiityfl Ta3§i3ig"Vi1:t(<i§'~a§écri§:unt' aiii aspects of the case, in
my view, the Afmfiiug ifa:=:_(:'i53Vf'<i€:':c::1"".;'.-yfth-'=3 trial ceurt is sound and

groper. " .]f§1:1"1,:£iy v}'.e\i'r,~~ 116 gound is made out to interfere with

V. thev  jzfigment.

' VV  'I11 §iew_¢i;u:t§u1n§ above discussion, I pass the follnwingz

ORDER

“ii C1’iminaiAppea}, is dismissed.

sd/3;,
Judge