{'By"%3;5i;s'rr£'_~;V. .<_: RAMADAS 85 co 3
AA .-._'m'1$ CRLA IS FILED U/8.378%} cR.P.c. BY THE
' .fiD"¢O(:i--ATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYENG THAT THIS HONBLE
_ % __ " C(iUR'I' MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIQE THE JUDGMENT 13533333
T BYTTH2 xv: ACMNL, BRLORE cm, IN C.C.N0.8?18/03 m',3.9.es --
« ACQUI'I'TING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENSE
n I
I’
«’11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN{}ALO_._R__E
EIATED THIS THE 30TH DAY cm JULY 2e:3a %’%«-«_:J”‘%iV4
BEFORE 3 V’
THE HOIWBLE MR.JUSTIQE.K.’RAM}§NN¥X _
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nt3.1888/2935;:
BETWEEN: ‘T _ A T’ A A
1 K NAVEEN S/O K C KRISHNA: —
330.578, 18TH MAIP~§”‘§?.QAD,~’V’ ” ., ‘ _
3.3.}; KND STAGE, _ V.
BANGALORE-‘?O .,AP1?ELLANT
{By Sri ;:S;fi~§£T’: “lV§Q:£gf’vNE.i;3£<RLI_ :z3;.,§_.'ss<3(§':.éi;*I"Es)
AND: ' V V' _' "
1 B RAW”}?§?A1SAr)_’RAI£.v[§¥}1¢’:
S/’Q G BHAGYIKNATEFI REDDY
~ /AT 510.783′ 16′.I’_Hv MAIN Ram,
« 20TH CROSS, 13.3.22. IIND STAGE,
” » _BA.I§GA’I.,QRE — 70 RESPONDEN”f'(S}
ii’k’A-iii
P/U;’S.138 OF NJ. ACT.
considexing the evidence placed on record by both parties,
the trial court acquitted the respondent. V.
appellant has come up with this appeal _A
gmmd that the finding reco:’deeo153;’1;:-33
aequitting the respendent was..’a.ei L’
any money lending license anlfie» the.V_ei1e£;1ue.: P2
gven by the mspondenf;’~.a5 to the
_amount borrowed by his ‘§é’.i}ieh is incorrect
and fllegel. as Well as the other brothers
borrowed business purpose and the
eheque beezi to the appellant, which came to
Therefore, the findings recorded by the
} perverse. Hence, this appeal.
the arguments of the learned counsel for
. ‘ ecppellelnt and the learned counsel appearing for the
_;*es;’ujo1l§cle11t and perused the records.
K 5. During the course of the arguments, learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent
borrowed the hand loan of Rs.3,40,000/– during June
lg ,4 /,,.,–»»~””
2062 assuring that he will pay the iI1terest
month. He ieeued a cheque « foe
ageeing to pay balance amount the”
pay the amount covered he V
issued a demand nofice of the
Negotiable Instmlments neither paid
the amount = during the
course of taken a defence
that V by him as collateral
security fo)_:” the by I}.W.2, which is
incortjeet, Ttie has not properly eonsidered the
6:3′: “”” ‘1y’ t’3VideI1C€ Placed on record by the
efiggesfion was put to P.W. 1 that he was not
V V’ _ haviiig ‘finoney lending license. It is argued by the
t H H u that the respondent has not placed any material
i:o’ how the respondent advance money to many
T ” It is contended that no iieense is required to
H gve assistance to his close fiiends. Since he has
borrowed the amount from his father-in-law, who was
Mt’)/’,. _,,,»»~–”
fl
flil
Ex.P.2 was cxfllected by the appeilant from
as coilateral security for the amount ‘
brother. The respondent can ‘
matoriais placed on recent!
the amount said to ‘the”oppe11ant
is not a legally I’ecover*&tV)lsé:_ the burden
heavily cast on afipelkéiit the aame but he
failed to Hence, he prayed for
dismiséal c:sf.. ‘ ‘
8. iiigzfooxtention, he has relied upon a
_ aecisggqn orendéied: by me Apex Court (2003 AIR sow
733%; or xmsmm JANARDHAN nmrr –Vs-
oAfr?rAT1é3YA;o.ImnE, it has been held that “An
‘ jVaccuuSezd””Vfo:’? ojscharging the burden of proof placed upon
3. statute need not examine himself. He may
his bmtien on the basis of the materials already
V’ bfought on record. An accused has a constitutional right
to maintain silence. Standard of proof on the part of an
/4.:
IEQQ –:= /’
U, ,/4′
to Show that the appellant is doing money ,1z~:’:.1di1}.g
business without having license. The evideng;e_”4*of’
clearly indicates that he is doing car b11sifia:ssiV’_atidA V’
father-i;o~–1aW is a real estate busi2§ioss;’ ‘ Much
been made by the respondent ..Aa1icit V» L’
about his income to Show doesto.ot”i1avo:’;sufiicie11t
income from his car] titan. However,
during the course of P.W.1 has
deposed hf:-~Vis_ and running a Kinetic
Honda also doing purchasing and
sefling ‘of. c:ats”.» ., that, he is not doing other
monthly income is Rs.1,50,000/– and
“jelly business. So, considerixag the fact
. thaif’ has advanced/ient a sum of
/~» to the respondent and some amount to his
.’_ttt’.~bi*ot’hé’:*/I).W.2 and against whom he has also flied a
t “–D;5r9i£zate complaint for bouncing of cheque issued by him
‘in C.C.No.8′?17/2003 which was also dismissed by
acquitting the respondent against which the appellant has
1 -X ,…««
K’/_ ,_u’
filed Criminai Appeal No.13s7/0.-3, thus, mee§m¢sesn%%or
issuing cheque to appeliant by nesbondeiet
for loan amount borrowed bj¢_D.W.A:i2V
there are two different and V’
D.W. 1 on one hand and on the
other, connecting the same does not arise
espeeiaily when’ to prove his
defence. that no license is
uiméie to ~e/§fitefi€i ‘m’oIie’v «*5 hel to one’s own close
friends of order passed by the trial
_ Court.%fA:’ecquittifiga_floe respondent is totally illegal, perverse
‘ ‘ V _ _a:1§:;i« –iJ;}(.f}I’I’€*,(3i$§ ‘ e.,. 4
– *”%’e’e»A¢e¢§emg1y, the appeal is allowed. The
é order of acquittal passed by the 16′-*1
Bangalore, in C.C.No.8718/2003 is hereby set
The respondent/ accused is convicted for the
‘V V ‘ punishable under Section 1.38 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and is sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.3,i5,{)0=O/– i.d., he shall undefgo 3.1 for 4 months.
I
C
–:15:-
After deposit of the fine amount, a sum of
shail be payable to the appellant’ ‘w£1y Qf ‘
and the balance of Rs.5,00Q– _
State Exchequer.
*Mvs