IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ATBANGALCCRE Dated this the 7"' day of September, «C Before THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE Lit:/212131" G' 7 Criminal Appea!.4__ 9157../_l2008 Between. " Dr C K Shashtry, 63 yrs . S/0 late Ramakrishna Shashiry «- R/a Ganapathy Temple Road " 'M Kadaba Post, Puttur Taluk D K District A C (By Sri A t<esn;;va"ehéi3:-,t~;4;;iv.)§_l! And: %%%% 'M Mr Ramaneinda'Pai' V' Prop,» Mahalésefinterprinersl' , N V Yelmudi, Main Road A Puttur }, D K» Distvrict V" Respondent
“Erased Assts., Adv.)
C’ under S.378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
praying ‘tie se..t’asid’e the judgment dated 5.7.2008 in CC 143/2006 by the
H 4VAddl. }l\zI¥?C; D K.
Appeal coming on for Hearing this day, Court delivered the
f0l.l0vo’ing: fit.»
The cheque is said to have been given by the accused, taccording
to the complainant, for the amount lent by him to A4 alt
appears in connection with a transaction to settle_b.usiness,
according to the complainant, he has]also_Aiaceeipted_itheiamoiuntof i
Rs.4,50,000/–. For the remaining amount, i:;cheque*.
would have been issued by the the amount
would have been lent by the~.fl,c§USeq\”‘ later there
may be an instruction issuedA..tOi:i.i_i1–e payment. It appears,
throughout, the itjheiiiargument of the parties has
opined as to iikept a huge amount of
the contention of the complainant.
On the other hand, it is of the appellant’s counsel that the
trial court has also “no_ttaken’ note of the fact as to how the accused had
Rs}. :iwi.th him so that he could pay to the complainant when
there 1s’__noth»irigd_to that the accused has drawn the amount from the
bank.
“T he trial court referring to the Various judgments and also taking
{meat the arguments on behalf of the accused, opined that complainant
5
has not placed any material to show that the accused was also doing
share business in the office of his brother. Simultaneously, it has also
opined that some payments are shown to have been 1nade._regar_ding
settlement towards share business. It appears the cc-i9l_tentie;j~–..
complainant is, towards amount borrowedby the ac:’cusedl’fiTom hi.m,__the” .
cheque is issued. Also, it may be possible th’at.’theit»cheqluelint:-st “li:4rve
been issued by the accused to the ‘c~omplai’rviant .tow.a1’dsfthe balance.’
Rs.1,50,000/–, when the comyplaina1aty_h_als”~take.n a contentionrlthat there is
a settlement for Rs.6 lakhs”‘–_v.’ega1’ding’::;ha’i=e”t bi1s:,iness and a sum of
Rs.-4,50,000/– has be<';n_paid"bytheaeeusedly. it has noted that
arbitration proc_eecEings were.in'i«tlated 'before the SEBI. It is al.so stated,
settlement was' madepllieg-aiidinlgrthe share business and as per the
settlement, accused paid'.Rs.3 lakhs to the complainant.
Thé: .tria,1__ court"'hav.i..ng noted that PW 1 has admitted in his cross-
l'eXami'iiaticn:lth:at. accused had paid Rs.3 iakhs and again a cheque was
drawnpllon ..5:.Bank of Mysore for Rs.l,50,000/»«, opined that
l';:pmplain~ant';.has admitted that he has received Rs.4,50,000/–. A130, a
was made on behalf of the complainant to the accused DW E
W
9
just conclusion, the trial court could have referred Ex.D3, the document
when it has been disputed by the complainant for having executed the
same, to expert’s opinion and to render a just decision in _th.e_”case_. In
stead, only on the ground that the accused has filed a_.-ease
complainant, it has opined that the case Jhasto be’deCid’edielse,where . 2
even without deciding the case on meritsion the..grou»nd”~thiat whienilthere
is an instruction to stop payment,ii_the. accused mayi’inot~§._be«.sd..ue; to the ‘
complainant as such, there an orderdof stop pay’me,nAt and also that,
there is a case filed in the civil’ court; ,_ }
When therevi’.i~.«j _some semblance of truth to show that, as is noted
by the trial .__cou,rt, ‘the”«s.A”a_c”euse’di has given some amount to the
complainant. but, it would not necessarily be towards loan and it would
have ii:heeri.i:’tow’a_rds settlement of the share amount due to the
comp.l’a.inant;* “circurnstances, without looking into the stand taken
V by _ by the””comp’lai-nant, simply it has proceeded on the score that the accused
‘ 2’—h’in:=sel’f hasfiled a case to recover the amount. When the complainant
e.hi’mseif’has disputed the sigiiature on Ex.D3, it would necessarily be the
“s-ubjiect matter for experts opinion. Even the accused has taken a stand
“VJ
case on merits in the proper perspective.
expenses regarding the expert’s opinion
Appeal is alfowed
An
The compfainant to ilieéirpthe