= ..... .. e
- Dodtiab3J]§p_1§1'a Taluk
AV " Hagfiaixx.-syt the ondar dated 4~2«-zoos passed by the xxx: ACMM
~ C.?§3.No. 1333012003 and convict tin: aocuaved under Section
$38 ofN.I.Act.
A. the Caurt delivered the following:
IN THE HIGH coum' OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 17% I)A"if~i)F"¢JUjL;Sf:?Hé§:)'()#!;~'}:v
BEFORE V' _ %
THE HOIWBLE
cR11uzaIALA_1_é_;3_E_A__L__
BETWEEN: V j " V
C. R Hanumanthcgcwda if '
S/o late 'Veagmgowfda 1.
70 yrs, 113 NoL7f35;A;jVj3¢;gg;;-« _ :1' . "
Bangalore D§str1'5ct._ ' . " ;
4' V A ' Appellant
Associafics, Adv.)
S/0
Kasaba Hobii
mstrict. Respondent
A ‘ 8111 C R Gopalaswactny Associates, Adv)
‘I’..]::1′.e=A.: crimitna} appcal is filed mldcar 373(4) Cr.P.C
‘é’.s'<.,§§L'§flV Add1.Sma1l Causes Judge, Bangalore in
Thiscriminalappcaloomingonfirhcaringthisday,
6'
5?
»«””””
…r]
c
cheque in qucsiion as security in the
Puttanna near the factory circic and the
has repaid the amount to the appcwmt in the
R of said Puttazma but he am not mire hack the:
9.w.3 – Puttanna s/0 Chcnnappa stated in his
complaint against the respondent that the
under Section 133 ofN.I.Act. A
3. In pursuance to the
Court. that respondent-aocuscki ‘V L’
matter. Appellant has.’ and
ztspondcnt was gig’ ivV:1§.’.’::1.;’3:)11dcnt had also
‘ thrcc were:
marked as ” arguments, and
considering t_l1§ V_ the trial Court
acquitted __ofl’¢noc punishable under
Section 1.33 N§i.~A§n
‘V 4. shows that appellant and
fgapd The {icfcnoc taken by the
took a loan of Rs.4,00()/- from the
evidence that he do not know about landing of Rs.45,.{}®{}/-
to the respondent by the appcllmt and he was V.
the appellant advanced loan of Rs.4,000[ – to K V’
The respondent has cxazriincd the
show that rcsponticnt had _
year 1991 and the said far a
period of foui”_..3′?§I’_~’*. aocmmt was
transfizrmd go’ 2001 and the
account them was baiancc of
123.50/:3 The has not displizd about the
date and in tho cheque — EXP-2. Ifthc
only Rs.4,000/- in the yam’ 1991
back the cheque fmm the appellant The
V . reasbns by the trial Court that the appellant and
_ war: good friends and therefore the” mspondcm
amoucct and imga.L In a case by the ofibncc p
‘under Section 138 ofN.I.Ar:t the bu1&n is on the
‘T'”,/»
I ‘ jf>
‘«_.>g.;>/
complainant to prove that the respondent
towazds legally recoverable debt orflpfhcr “‘ 2
discharge of the said burden by
well settled law that the the
prcsumption available’ of the
and he can «by rcly’mg an flu:
materials ii? itself without he
being cntcxtfij izztes-1 instant case, there is
no suficicnt by both the pa1’tic.s in
stgpport the appellant has failed to
the Court that the cheque Ex.P-2
legally rwavcrable debt. So also
TV evidence is not suficicnt to connect the
” ‘ ‘:’éiis§fit¢dLch;:q1§c~Ex.P-2 wrth” that of the cheque sa1d’ to have
by him to the appcllmt as mcurity to the loan of
taken from the appellant during 1991. It
appears, the trial Court hurriedly disposed of am ms:
F
without gzvmg’ ‘ suficlcfl t opjportunity to the _
all the material evidence bcibn: it.:’Tfie1cfqr§¢, it
proper to remand the mattnr ~.
panics to adducc additionai ifémy.’
5. Accordingly, mg». ” The
judgment and order of passed by
the xxx: Acrm Jfidgc, Baum
in c.c.No.1.§3.§n/ is rcinandcd
to the opportunity to both
cvfurlcncc if any, to hear them
and pass three months from thc
Q date” 9:’ receipt joftms order.
Sd/2-I
Iudg3