M/S Chethana Pharma vs M Mallappa on 22 July, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 22:99 my 01:' JULY 209$"-.4:__:'..V_
BEFORE) '    

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.R,¢..2:£.éX?~3l\:¥:$..:: .

Criminal Aratntal Nc5.%17?§[*2G£)5%...'  %   é - 3

BETWEEN:

M/ 5 Che-thana Phaxma,  
Represented by its SQi::P1'opfiet¢r, "'
Sri G.S.Shashidhar       V   "
S / 9 B. Shanthavccrappa,' L " "
Aged about 40 ;;.ears,_~~  .  '
Chethana Ph.53ma--, 

M.G. Road,  5f   ~ '

Ch:kzizag.a1ug¥§:;?7.:L%1Q1'.%..:"'----.   % APPELLANT

(By Sri M._S.  Prasad for Juris Consultant,
. _  . ' ' "  advs.)

   

9-/»H. 
Aged a_b61;tl=3O years,
Nanéj Medicals,

'   Bus Starid Road,
~ Lihgadahalli Village,
' _ ' =.'I'arikcrt: Taluk, '
%  Qhilmxagaiur Dist. RESPONDENT

(By Sri R. C. Nagamj, adv. (not present)

at-I-sldrfi

had paid Rs.é,®O0f- in ‘Ewe instalments} abut

the appellant fias mat returnedT th&W_¢hé¢yé&

The admissian made by §.W.1 .;§fl_t5afi Thé_»

purchased the medicine worfih t©,Rs.1QgGOQ/¥$nfi

paid. casfa oi Rs.2,0QQf- seeking Qxefiit ‘biElV

worfih R$.8,QOO/~ and he has no fiiffiéglfiy any

how to produce tfie crédifl bill issfiefi by the
appeilant. The admissiéh m§d§.by respsndent
is that, ,a§t§r lissfié %§§ *chéque only, the
credit fi*§§_h§$ begn iséued, but he baa mat
prQduced«the Cfiedit bill. The trial Court has

not taken vthié_ fact into cansideration.

‘”«_Mwré¢@er«the réfigéndent has met sent any reply

“_in$§ite af service of notice. Notice was sent

fly READ §$ per Ex.P~4 a3 well as US? Ex.P-5,

t which Clearly indicates that notice was duly

” 3etVed. Therefcre, the trial Caurt ought to

Save érawn infierence’that the defence fie: out
by the respondent has not been rebutted. The

re3p0ndent has mat produced the reliable

appeilant is a proprietor. The ‘ Said

apgrenenaien expressed by the triaig€en:t?iaA

immaterial in the present caeef, aa*_ the”

tesgendent herein is nat__’a:apa::ng»_”;ae

caetents cf the said cheque end tbeL$i§natnre7t

found therein, he is aiae not diaputing that
he issued the _eheqae_ ie.i§aveur ef the
appellant, therefepe, under .tee ¥N.i. Act a

presumpticn eheefid be arawfi~:a favour of the

aepeiiant ;tnét– the feenondent issued the
dispfited, cheqfiegi towards legally recoverable
debt or, *iiabilit§’ and. it is for the

zeepcndent-aeeeee to rebut the said

Vintesumptiefig in the instant case men-senaing

.ef”the’teeiy inspite sf receipt of notice and

nonepteduction of the creéit bill it any

ieeued by the appellant to the respondent ie

ifatal to the ease of the zespondent. ?he

resgondent had failed to rebut the presumption

available in favour ef the appellant-

cfimpiainant under the Act. Therefio;ag*j:hg

finding recotded by the trial cou:t’i$vte£a11g ‘

perverse and incorrect, anfi ii is liable tc’bé

sat aside.

Accmrdingly, the aggéal i5_§i§@&é§:” TheV

ordér of acquitt§1_pa$§§§ §§ the ffiéi Caurt
is hereby set asidéVé§$ €hé;fiéfi§§fident–accused
is conviated far fine bfééfica §g$ishab1e under
Sec.138€§§ N;f:vE¢t§$h§ii§ sentenced t0 pay a
fine $5 R§}§$}§G§jf anfi ifi default of payment
af f§né am¢#fl£:h&n§$@li undergo 3.1. for six

months. *If.:he réé§ondent degosits the fine

~.. afiflfinfi, the xsamé shall be payable to the

K S “eil3nfifla$ cammensation.

._ P? V , . , L

Sd/*1
Judge

Lr