ax: THE Hiou comm' or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 29"' day of September, 2010
Before
TH1: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI i ii 0
Criminal Appeal /
Between: it 0
M R Radhakrishna
S/0 M N Ramachandra
R/o Mundigesara Village
Malve Post, Sagar Taluk A_ ; _ * , "
Shimoga District ~ Appellant
(By Dlwakar & Assts.,AAdv.) i If C
Arid: . . r . 'I \
M G Narasirhhainurtliyl
S/o Ganapathi iB_hat.
Sanskrit Lecturer '» .0
Stjoseph College
i{.a;iida1,_'lVlan:ja.ppa Road" ' ---------- -« *
g(_Neatr.Do'ub1e' Road), Shanthingar
Banga.lore. _27_ V A * Respondent
(By Sri. Adv.)
Aplpeal is filed under 3378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
l""::v".pray'ingVtLto set aside the order of acquittal dated 10.6.2008 in
C1'tl.._A97/2007 by the Fast: Track Court I, Shimoga.
' t . . 0 2 C ibllowing:
The Appeal coming on for Hearing this day, Court delivered the
JUDGMENT
Appeal is by the complainant assailing the order of the Fast-Track
Court I, Shimoga .in Crl.A 97 / 2007 acquitting
dismissing the complaint.
Heard the counsel representing the parties. _
The JMFC Sagar on the complaint filed «. by the .__co1nplair:ant
regarding non payment of the amount even after”issuanceIof le’gal°’notice’~ s
for the dish'(>n.o.t:a’1j7e olll::fi.;che’qn,1e*-idravvtron Indian Overseas Bank,
Neiamangala Bran.chV’wis-sated, 4h;1,,.tl2e’ accused, having held an inquiry,
found that there,e_isltaVlega_lly,enforfeeable debt and accordingly, ordered to
pay an anaonnt of .Rs.5U,’010O/x–‘ tothe complainant. Apart from that, it has
also o-rderedytisep accuse’d””‘t’o undergo simple imprisonment for four
.lmon.ths,~to of Rs.2,000/~ and default sentence of one month.
Inlithe””appealafpr_ef’ert’ed by the accused, the appellate court held that
V V’ accused.._has,__probaba]ised his defense that he was not present in the house
_. .3f”‘th6e.C0mDl–ainant and he was at Bangalore 300 kms away. Therefore,
theloan transactirun is false and he failed to prove the transaction.
/
2: ,»
– X.
3?’-
It is for the accused to disprove the issuance of cheque towards a
legally enforceable debt and mere probable explanation is notlsuhficient.
The reasoning given by the lower appellate court appears–‘t_o’ be:-erroneous
and does not stand to reason. The transaction isof the year’v2004;-.fi«Th’e
accused and complainant are relatives. In the ‘absence of anysis-1V1ch_V
acceptable explanation being offered’i.t:ha$ tohibe. hleldl _t_hat’–,ithle’lclhequellV
was issued towards a legally eti1.forceabrle’de_bt,
Be that as it may. Ofi’-.I3lCITtS’l11ElSltf)f1;: lultimpateyly the accused has
agreed to pay an amount of Rts;;40..:G0O/~_to_ thev_conipllainant, within six
months.
In”r:1Qdificat’i~:)nlof the order of the lower appellate court, the
and the accused shall pay an amount of Rs.40,000/-
to the complaiinant witiiin six months.
Sd/–s
ludge
an