"Mr 1:: am am: COURT ~93 zmmmraxn AI' mmn mm mm 29"' any or :s2v«.:%.}'%2~v;<~A_c§%3" rm I-mam HR.JU3.1'I€§E..?K . cszxrzm. A9235; Ni};-._ 2156-.I2%aa.ra I rrantlim Lansing ff':o.'Pv?:~¢.I;i:a:iv. _ No.20!-C. Hillaxa R_r:-a.::.s' P.B.Nc.151,__3anqa,l9:e. Ron by ita.1m:aa:Lnar jfiircétez 2 H R I-Iegfie .. Appellant ; :»*;:i%%%z-I i 4? 31% Adv.) 5 Nanfigkfimé .'r S Haj ox, 1Di;!'§¢t03: 3.1!-I*_;3l-?;:oca's:s__ P¢t.£.td m;;.«:s2;% 2" f1'i::.z:....' ' K.;"$.G§rd"er_:. 4"' Crew: » Vtgazxbagiz :?.¢'as:;1 2.ange,1:a;f.-'u -f-'f2.'.?'' .. Respondent
9:1 9 K Vantata Roddy, Adv)
criminal appeal is filed under;
Station 318 c::..1=.c. against: the ozdu: dated 4-
‘;’i–!2.I:r£J2 passed by the XII Md1.C.x.H. Bangalore
;€.n C.¢.N¢.. QBSMOIZOOG acquitting the
__.::espom1ent-accused for the <2-fiance punishable
umia: Section 138 of N.I..Act:.
This criminal appeal having been haamd
and renamed fer ordera, coining an for
‘M
f’*~–y
<;j§;"1:L ———-
il.’\!Ll \.–.r\n…4rwLJm nu.
2
{.2
§
I-I.
O
52
:3
O
L)
:
S2
:1:
E
E
3
§
H.
O
‘E
3
D
u
r
E
:
E
S
I
:
If.
5
3
i
>
I
as
:3
O
L)
:
Q
1:
§
pxonauncnrnant of artists this day,
delivered the following: V
J U 1: G M 3 N 2′ %
The appfillnntlcaqziéiriéffit –
with this appeal gizaw
O4-05-2902 pmagag Add]…
Chiaf Hetmpcli ‘ Bangalore in
c.c. No. the complaint
filed ‘%§?.:1;a; against the
roap¢rzd§j:igt:V?’.’ »;.>£’£=:a;:a punishable undo}:
soaiiyar. 4′ Act, holding that
there iE,_Vi’1i.:> recoverable debt under the
…. the raspondcnt tn the
and that the cheque in question
H in 1.-«spam: or a time barred debt.
z brief facts of the can in that
cvikaaplainant-appellant is stated ta have
3 total sum of Ra.33,00,000\- to the
“accused–z~ospoexdant and in dine disehaxga at a
petition of tho liability, the reapcnzdent
E Ifihli !
1:
Q
:2:
5
5
5
§
II»
o
{E
323
U
3:
9
z:
§
§
%
§
3
22
ID
0
u
:
9
::
3
§
I
5
5
§
5
f
issued a cheque to: P.s.25,00,0GO/- gal’-.4é3+’03~
2000. The cheque when prenanted
bouncsod for the season oaV’!M fpayug-géntii
the drawer’ . The camlainantfafipfilisfiifiwipfiufid
a. legal tactic: to th’e..___x¢aj’m_nk2§nt.’v: }1.;
an-wad’ an the Since
the respondent chofie amount,
than compslniggant ‘i§I<§.;. é 5_'§Vl¢Of20oO. The
actcuaedl V' said comlaint
filed % that ha had
tuktffi Qppellant in the year:
193?}:-;#d rapaid'cm. 20–6-96 and
<:bta.i;1eci 'a§; 'd§ie.";1§.¥.:ter from the appellant. at
ofévvgifailing tinanco, as per the
" '$13'-,:_.ithe ccxwlainnnt the roapondent
in blank. cheque with his signature as
§§<:u"r.iA%y and thexofmto the dishanourad ehoqne
not in relation to legally unfozaeabln
% "'-'. ___:§ebt, as such the respondent cannot he held
guilty under 5.139 af the H.I. Act.
,3
5../r _ g
JEXHJ \-J’\!Iv..l’lI_.ln nu
-…….. \/I ….-….m.n.m rub!-1 mum or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKAM fiiw
GH COUR’
M».
3. The trial. court after than
avidence at’ this parties and
regard held. that than
racavarable debt: undar ‘.
the xtsponclont to
cheque in question wa:§’VL’L’i: sa:1;§dV” at a
time barred dabt;_ 3?1;e–‘_V: that;
it really 13:: had availed
£15.33, 00¢
arm! portion of.’ the
loan} % no, oco\– is named,
thar;”1f§aV to the complainant to
prtgdnge extract ta shat: that the
had advanced finance.
ccurt below daclined to rely on
tzhfi aga1§f’tToat1mony at 919.1 and dimiasod the
A;:¢u:p”.min:: filed by the appellant. Han-co tho
has come up with this appeal.
4. Heard the arguments or the learned
caunsel for the appellant and reapondonts and
perused the muzorda .
……… .,.- RHKEVHIRRH Hum COURT or KARNATAXA HIGH COURT or KARNAi;e{§=\ HIGH cow:
5.. The laamed counsel to: the
took me through the rocoxd and
the issuance or cheque and tho
on this said cheq-up in ‘.
rcapandont; ttzrthon
ta send. reply to ;egQ1~
issued by the ‘ ‘t:£1g¢::oforo it: is
azcgusd that the <:;:fi'::t to have come
to the exist: legally
racwerahle baa been
issued gamma. It is further
argued tho' in favour of the
appellagzt _ 'r1.£-'.~t lgfien rebuttad by the
sfiiaiittod that the raapondont
V".T~;a;::counta with the appellant: and
produ<:-ad by the roaponaont at
31} E<1»,.. '3 roster to a single account and
the finding': of the Hagistrute that
h between the appellant and the
xrgspondenu is confined only to the
" transactions rnzerrad in 23.231 to D3 is
arronooua and bones he prayod for "
appeal by utting aside the ends:
passed by tho trial
6. In rapport of ~
learned counsel for
on tho decision «I606
in can of vane-Iran
H having issued
, “aithcvu-yh*, ‘ho owntd his
aiqwnt-12:9 !;ia9:*aizr:£fr5iI1mption that
or drum for
1¢onaid:az–a§:iqnvi.__’c3:’data which choqno
boats; . ‘«.&:ia.§irr-holder of chnqno
pr:a_aumod- “1′:¢..VI’mva noccivod it to:
diachazgg a’;£”~”‘ liability-Burden is
“upon acgnaedv to rebut pzoauupcion.”
V. he also roliad on tho dnciaion
ifgrrnn zoos an 3167 in can of me
‘Even thl collateral security
NH VNVIVNHVH -In IH’nf\’\ I —H
…,……. .. ~.mn.am mur: COURT or KARNATAKA I-HG!-I COURT OF KARNAT4Klm(X”w
HiGH (SOUR?
‘1. on the ether hand, the leanggfiitifihfivgfiagl .
for than respondent subtuittod ‘
raapondent had diaclmzgrtd “”t:lA_1£.§ 7. AV
borrearad tram the
due CQttifi¢lte frog” tht
dishanourad chgqnf ;i.i:’:”‘ nah in
rtaptct of an. debt. He
further documentary
evidences’ ‘:[_ew£’ the appellant
‘issue has not been
pxfifitié and that £x.1).1fNo
Duo Cu:Et5,fi¢§’:te§;..v_ttéigficltsea that the respondent
“‘=t2:a._.Aantixa balance outstanding as
t and there in no mount due by tho
or: ‘£110 data at issue of the said
grherufore it in auhtaittod that the
K jtfigiatrati has rightly acquitted the
“gtttondent and there in nu illegality oz:
V M.’i1’1<'J0.!.'2'£GC!f221aBS'fi in tho arch: passed by the trial
PK
:3
O
U
I
9
.’.’l’.’
§
ié
HE
. .. n.nzwu-\u-\!\A user: COURT as KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 0%
eouxt. Hence he prayed for dimni.aaa_,L the
am: cal .
8 . In supper: of mg cas~_:a'”‘3n§:
the decision zepoztud ix;
em» 0: x.s.m1zA2m~zs’i ;vs.*-94’
sum or mum mm it is mild
thus! I . VA A.
‘ %.,~_;,?’Bu_.zden__..9£ ‘a_nf-.:1¢cused in
not giiapxave tho
‘acme 1r:,*v5ita””*7iu”t£adt2y;’
“=.£__§a:5 fburdon on the
bani}… ;j_ of-. «.p’i:opg3m:iaranco of
direct or
¢i::ci::mat¢xztie;1″-.v._ avidoncs, for acid
‘v~yuxpa5g’..Ly..he._’=..§gn also rely upon –
«widens: by complainant.” V
9.. the argumantu of thu
éJ.b’a:a::i§d both the parties the paint
§:_-jéva-;V=Va§:fu:’–1’foz my consideration is,
gt; . §iA1iothar the cheque issued. by thb
Azoagbméieat was 15¢: discharge, in whole car in
of my debt 0:: other liability. ‘E’ and
b] iihnthar the order of the trial court
is 11.169111. incorxoct. perverse and capricioua?
flI1.”\Is
……….. V. m~_muu-unn.n- n’:_ur_rs £.eUUK”l’ OF KARNATAKA HEGH COURT €35 KIQRNATAKA EIGH COUR:-‘
Suction 133 of. ma N.I. Act; the to
draw 9. pro-aumtion with zeqax:ci§’_:’.”‘*ée§j-~.:
exist:-Ines of laganly :ocave.*e:~fi$;;a: ~..,: ‘V
Hawwer, than said px§§un:;p#.i;<§n,. .:
rthuttad by the a.¢’:cz; aod ‘
cantrary. In the §.nsta£t= 1 iciocizmnntaxy
evidence V. 1′ ~.. ge:;fi$§;21§od?§:§§apendent
mean that” g;Etn-3′.’ z~to.3a\8’z
the :::igQiti:”””‘}:ot made any
trans V ainant -appol lam: .
The 1 pxaducod by than
acctxa;i:”:j-£9V3poz.S<:A§§§:fi»1§" that the accsusca had
a.3..::;-asady tits entire loan undo: the
Ciitak acaounta. In this rward
repuxted in races: 6 sec 39 in
chat: v__§£.vLA.i'~$2uaymn Hanan untested supra, 115
appiieahln ta the tact: or the cesa-
hauzd. By producing Exam to D3 tho
___:i&¢.':!1flfid diachazagad his initial burden of
:2.-auebutting this prdarazmtion and he named not
dispzwe the ceaglainantw cram in 1:3
. _……,.. .. n…..m.-…~.m mun want or KARNATAKA HIGH comer oz= KARNATAKA HIGH"'EW'W
OUR?
I2 .
entirety and tharoforo the onus ahittaf-«.£§nvv to
than ¢m1ainant to prove his viiizf
instant ease has failed
ccawlainant gave anriden¢e =. i:h;_1tA.:’h£i>§::afi’
documents to reveal loan’
which was paid to the lame
finance, but mi u .: p.:coducad before
court for the to the
the decision
it is! hold thus:
mt been produced
Vtsithcfitit tmtaon and in a cue
t-1-ham dodumofifinry evidence throwing
light ” 1:23. ‘~._:a;a’t:te:r:s in issue is
43 ‘ ‘mzhrtittecjly in pasuesaion of this
” gartius tho cane, no such
atgnmgnt can be allowed to he
_ that they were not annmaned
. tkraizefore they was not produce,
instleaid an adverse infaronce oz:
a’dv:ai~sa prasunption can be and
~~ should be drawn against: the party
having and withholding much evidence
AA in his poaaossian and net producing
” ths um: to: peruse}. and
aonaidenation of the Court.”
fipplying the shave dtmiaion ta the tenets
of than prasant case, since tha conwlainant in
—— —–.p–:._ in an-|.I\I’II’IIJr’lIII’\ III’MiII \¢\Il.J’l\I ‘lull l\l*’|l\l’.l”‘lI.l”1l\l’\. I1l\7rI \-u\JIJI\1 K33’ AMKNHJHRA
pcaaasaian of boat avidmacu which wonl:;i”‘–.havo
thrown light on the inane in
withholds it, advaxso inforczxc-§.V__Vi%x§:§:i1é;’a=VV1;, ‘%
can be drawn notwithata§ré.i;:r:;’1g” J
pace: dues not lie
adverse intaranca thaw
couplainant due iévf §h.e books
at accounts in in
question-5% ߤ % V % } [T J
13.’ “‘1é€.3’ produced by the
raa;;ié:§:’r:}§iv§r§{;vf,V ‘V » V éflfirt below :1 early
put torth by the
I.’E§’§OndQii?:_:Vflt’£.l33.tA.”.tV1’iCJ mount had. been cleared,
j.tgol£ “””i’§ sufficient to rebut the
available in favour: cf the
.’¢t§g¢V’té;)J5g§.§;1z”$§:afa2:1::t:/appellant undar 3.1.1.8 or mx. Act
and” .V’1:;_fian:.2a the failure on the part at the
sfgfipmxdentfaccuuad to send reply to the legal
V __ iz.otica sent by than appellant-complainant is
not csf any uerinun czcnnaquonce.
/”3
1 R2
.,_ ,-._
1.
15
the appellant against the re6pefideee£ fi
Therefore, the court below hae”fightl& eéee fie .’
the conclusion that only”on °r¢L¥igqW §5eet5ef.”
evidence of PW.l it is te
that the cheque in queetion bee Seen ieeueé by
the respondent towards dischef§¢’e¢fief1e§e;@§e
recoverable debt. The ;es§efidefi£jie:eee¢eee§ei
in rebutting the preeug#¢;¢5eeev;;;ge;e in
favour of the appellafifi Qfie the efieelient has
failed to adduce eyifieeeeeEe*ere§e its case.
Hence this appeal feiie ene 15 liable to be
Accoreingly this aepeal is dismissed.
Sdlsf
1ac133
E
i?
£3
2
Q
3
E
E
2
as
§
:5.
Q
E
D
Q
U
$
Q
E
2
2
2
at
§
9.
0
§
3
O
U
I
Q
I
3
§
2
2
§
IL
0
§
3
0
U
E
Q
E
§
§
E
E
ég
32
3
D
.3
K
E
$
§
§
£
3
a
5
5
E
3
3