IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA.LOR._€__ Datedthis the 8"' day er December, 2010 Before THE HON "BLE MR JUSTICE HULLIVA Lil LG -_R;%iMESe~e,»ss,,e Q , T Criminal Appeal 6?! / V219_()'9 Between: " '- M/s Eshwar Paper Miiis Pvt Ltd» _ V. Reg.OfF: 253525, ?eenya Ind]. A-.1_'c:.3;v 3" Phase, Bangalore 58 ' V By is Accountant ~« K CAMu1'aiidb.ar;§ (By Sri Vishnu Millffiiiiy' And: I M/s V_e1z1n_k_ani' vEnter;zrisesAV i.t..s_' Proprie-t_or'--' Mr,lay;is.hee.1ez1nu.. " __ # 21, 1:;'4"" Phase Pee;:y& Industxml 'Area V' V. «_ 'B_fli'1:'g'dI:Qi.'C :38 V' ...... .. 2 ' ,iVir-.Jayasheelaln,..P1-oprietor M-/s V'e.VE'27'n..1.VkanAi' -!3nterp1'ise.s leakshjrnifVenkateshwara Nilaya 6'5-«.Cr0ss; K5121 Shree Nagar Main Road .V T E)z:5ai*alaalEi, Ayyappa Temple Road xB211agai~m"e 560057 Respondents
C Subimllanya, Adv.)
p-V
to 3 tallies with the very transaction as such, he is not liabie to make any
payment.
According to the complainant. Exs.Di–3 were receipisin_fijes_peé:t l
of some other transaction and not in respect of the li1V()§f..’f3S_: were ”
produced before the Court. Counsel l’or”t’hc eomplaiiiant also} submits
that there is an admission on tiilelpart oi’ tl1ei”a.cc.used himself as regards
the transaction.
First of 311.5 the.”t1’iai’ ‘cr=>1trt”–r.ji’:i-tiliiotvl vvant to rely upon the invoices
of which xerox—cio_pi’cis vvei7:esv.pro.duced a1’1*d….one more invoice copy was
required to be !)l”(‘\»_l-.’1l”1.§’.’.V@-(uvl-‘v’lJ’lJ’l,.V,’ it was_no,t’ produced. In the context, in order
to enable the compliainaiiwt to all original documents by way of
invoices l()’e’.*i:’.11″(lS w*l:i_ch’Vaccused is said to have issued cheque and,
,iioti~-.i_g tlielaciini.ssiit)i1 on t’he'”p’art of the. accused himself regarding the.
tra;1Asar:.tioriai’idV,l’~fui=tlicr. noticing some discrepancies in the finding of the
trial court’,-,the. lI”:il§_)’t1.’._’I,l”‘1V§3l(li order is liable to be set aside.
it’