- «Téac'hé"r;
IN THE HIGH COURT OF i{ARNA'fAKA
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15"' DAY OF DECEI\g1._B"I¥:'l:{5'~2,(}j..ib
BEFORE
THE H0N'3LI?, MRJUSTICE fi«UI;U _
CRIMINAL APPE;4§L..NO;3(}8 01r 2o0:s%"*
BETWEEN: %
M/s. City Finance A. _
N.G.0.Buna1ng, * M j =
Near V"
Kundapur. H _ $' ELLANT
(By sr1.:f_; . ._ [; A
AND:'--,_ X V V
Dinakar'a"'StheEty.VV" _
Major. V_
S/G Nat':-ayzina' hgtly,
~ %%%;%:;:)%»rg1;m1g»% V_i1_i21gt: & Post,
I~i.undap'miv 'i";1VA'i;:1.<";;
Udupi Dis-fj:f_icAt'. ..RESPONDENT
(B)/’ S1′:i”.’K.Cllanefmkzmth Ariga, Adv.)
‘ This Criminal Appea} is fiied Llfiilél’ Section 378(4) of
V ‘ Cr.P.C. praying to asidc: the judgmtsnt and order of ucqL1i{t;1l
‘3
dt.] ]..2.20()8 patssed by the Add]. Civil Jilcige (J1′.Dn.) and
J’MFC.. Ktmdapttra, in C.C.N(>.3i(.)]/()2 — acquitting the
respondsnt/accused for the offence P/U/ S. 1.38 of N
This Criminal Appeal coming on for iie:’.ii’i1’ig:’thiétizly, t.l_1e”
Court delivered the following:
This the –t:’0tt1«;i:]”ziiinartitltiliiaiienging the order
of JMFC, i.””»._VL1n.V(‘.,ii”‘zl?.{w)fiVt1V.t;:£t”iI1. 101/20()2 dated 1 I 022008 in
acquitting t]ie’iat:c_0séd a.nd,disi_n.i–9sing the complaint.
2. A0cc3rdi1t.giitoxthe complainant, it is 21 Finance
Ci_’jfp0tfz.1ti0.ii 1″epi’esen«ted by its partner and the accused had
“bn_r1′<)\{\:/€001' 5*.:{;.a:; of Rs.8(),0()0/– on 10.10.2000 promising to
1–cptty theifiatie with intei-est, but failed to do so and, as on
A19.()9.?,_(i?{)2, the accused was due in at sum of Rs.],2(),0O0/– to
i' the_.tornplaimtnt–firm and on demand, had issued 21 cheque
it ….i11m\/:1 on Cunam Bank, Beejadi Bimtch for Rs.].,2(),0(}()/–
XE"
‘4)
which. on presentation for encashment, came to be
dishonoured {or insufficient funds. Accordingly, aft’er causing
iegai notice. the eompiaint was fiied for non-payment. Tyhetriai
Court, after eii_qLii_:’y, has dismissed the C(}t]1p§diil1′{–«,..i_’£3_g£ii:;tS”E _
which, the cotnplainaiit is bet’oi’e4_this Co_ui’t.
3. Heard.
4. T.h’Cii””ul:ifi-]._i.C().LlifL_Jh£1ViF1g::Ii5)t€{iwihflt the accused had
borrowed -sutii tit’ orig. E02000 and at the time
of lendiing aiiiitiittiritii’>.c’ompia’iIia’nt had obtained promissory
note and ‘oither do:c.ti:i1;eiiits_:iiizvtiich are not produced before the
Court atoiig witti”tiiieA:Eetl§e»sau’iextract té prove his case and, that
the ;’ti1f17_(_A)U11[ii(.’rf_ARSii,éi0,0O0/- mentioned in the cheque is in
divtife*re;y;tt h.ziiu:£wi9it’i’n*g;”and not written by the accused and.
» :§1i{i]QL’..gh’.ti’1§”fif.I’C[lS€d has admitted his signature on the cheque
.he’_has”-stated .ti1§,’.’f the cheque given as security has been misused
by__the (,’£)l1i]ip_.iLl’iI121l1i, ret’erri.iig to the judgziient of the Apex Court
in ti’1eit_:ase of M.S.Narziyaiia Merton Vs. State of Keraia
§’/’
5
both the panics to ‘1ear.1 additiormi e.v’Eden_g:e._ if need be. Office
‘ $
to send back the 1’c:c0rds.
Sd/:6 1′
Bkp