1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNETAKA, AT
DATED TI-{IS 'THE 221»-1 DAY cm
'rm: HOFFBLE mm. JUS'I'ICE- 4 'mm':
. no.~51*a;%2c@_ % %
BE WEE:
M!s.IBEXGaI]a.g11erP\:t"--LI):1.A,'._
Ita registered Head C}fl'x;9"at f *
No.175f 54, I?a.j*£11:}.Taaj?i1as;=_R«€;a.-2:::i,
4' ~
Mr.Ra_je.,sh H;R;:
S-Io. . . . APPELLANT
" (By .'4Siv'fi"I~.i::;'j:1"I.' Vidyadhar, Adv.)
% A3:-LN; €I~Ié1i'?£:I1..13heemaA ,
'-ES/Vo'; 52 years,
Pmp. *£?r»9s?§:=:zj'V'I'-:5;:b;~~Ir1dia, 110.531,
Road-;jNr3.ar Double Tank,
_LaxIizipu;°*ar_:1--,V'Myaore--04. .. . RESPONDENT
_ Criminal Appeal is filed u]s.3’78(-4) of Cr.FC
V to net aside the Judgment and order of acquittal
29.2.2003 in CrI.A.No.818/ 2007 paased by the XXVI
ufiddl City Civil as Sassions Judge, Bangalore City, acquitting
, respondent/acrzuaed for the ofl’ence pf under %tion.13-B
ofthe KI Act.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for hearirg this day,
the court delivered the fiallogzyxgz
JQDGMEHT j
mas appeal is by the oomplairmnt by
the order of acquittal of the respondent ~–
the XXXVI Aden. City cm and s<g35ior_saJ;1dsge§,%%a
Criminal Appeal Na.s13/2007 – * V
2. A complaint was tVhe
rmpondent — accused afV’AC1§aque iasued,
which is dmwn_on % R;a.1,52,7oo;– lent in
commotion On presentation of
the with an endorsement
After isauance of aged
to he filed. The learned IUI.ap}3t1’ate,
the basis of the complaint filcd, has
and sentenced in pay Ra.1,63,DOO[~.
xpay U16 amount, the accused to suffer SI for on:
V’ out of the ordered amount, an amount of
shall be remitted to the State as fine. Aga.1ns’ t
, the accused preferrai an appeal in Criminal App-aal
110.818} 2007. The Appellate Court on the ground that
nothing has been stated by the complainant as to what was
fit’
3
the amount due, opined that the complainant has failed to
prove the and to discharge the liability, was
issued and therefore, reversed the finding of !A:heJ:f
in aoquitting the accused. Against Which,
corzlpkiinant.
4. The, lower of
Judgment noted the aV1v: E;:.D-1 Written
by the complainant it is admitted
that stopped the practice of
that, the complajxlant allaeg
on fencing mate:-na’ I was supplied and
. E;-aflae, t’heyV” “”” agreed to aupply on cash terms in
1s}_:):1’Vt¢;:_ bf Also, a request was macie to rebook the
Ex.D-2 is the subaequcnt letter of the
‘ to the accused. Thereafler, Ex.D–3 was. sent by
‘arécuscd to the complainant, whercin a bkanl-: cheque
with date and amount was encbsed to enable the
V x conxplajrlant to draw the total cost of that materials and it was
hoped that a punirtitve wouki be taken to supply
3?”
4
materials to Tata Coffee em, Aooorditlgm the accused
requested to send the matxariefls to Tat:-1 ooffiese. Theflppellate
Court having noted that no ev’n:1ence is
supplied the material either to the accused 0%
ami also in the absence of proof :Jif”‘é1tx:21}1}:1t
documentary evidence, held that A
cannot be believed. mum; fine year
2002, signed blank oheqge theaccused to the
complainant and that pmduced any
accounts materials auch as
Exhibite»./’D41 ” ly, the Appefiahe Court
formed the accused has rebutted the
the complainant has failed to prove
the lower Appellate Court noting the
we sent along with Ex.D-3 for supply of
that until and unless supply of material is
there is no enforceable debt. However,
%% upon the order ofthe Trial Court that if accused
. tn cent: as security, there was no necessity fiur him
tn give a blank signed cheque and the accused ought to have
given the cheque a1:m1unt,it has opined the
W’
5
Trial Court has committed an error. Accordingly, the
Appellate Court opining that the order of the in
perverse, acquitted the accused.
5. In the case on hand, although
convicted the accused and orde’1?éAd”‘ta&_
Rs.1,e3,0oo;-, what is X
question was issued in ‘ busmea° Va
tramaction and thfi A<.)pir1:';-ii a blank
cheque ought not to £113 accused to the
the cheque mentiomn.g'
the V Court having noted the
fie complairmnt and the accused
o"u__ceI*ta:1nV; 'aocumenm Praduced i..=.-., Exhibits 131
mapped sendmg' that'. n:1atena1' on credit
aocused sent an advance blank cheque
% supply of material, that it was the boundazu duty
to produce the books of accounts to allow
VT the mater1a1a' were supplied and despite that, if on
u x presentation of the cheque, the cheque was dishonourcd,
theI1onlytheaoc:u.sedwwou1dbeIiabIe andintheakaenne of
W
6
such material being produocd. he has opined that the order of
t11e’I’rialCourtis erroneous. _ 2
6. A1thou.gh, presumption is available!
of thc ommplajnant, the accused is shown to
the presumption by adducing cogent
the documents which are in df e J
between the accused ans!
Exhibits 13-1 to 13-3, documents
produced by the accuaea’ the DD to the
oomp1a5n£%for*%é?az1ci%%%1é5.30.00ot- and also Exhibits
13-14 to _– for which the witrnass for
the .’pIu;e;i;de:d hia ignorance. The accused
made “”” H snrnce-° re attempt to rebut the
. Eézasoning given by the Appellate Court is that it
apac:Lf ” ’11: stand of the comp1flJI’1B11t’ that the mater1.a.1′
be supplied only on such payment and atoppad
VT the materiah on c@it basis. Hecessm-ily, the
‘ eornplairxant ought to have shown that the materials ware:
supplied, but no documents have been produced in this
W
7
regard to show that t.hc:re is a Legally enforceable debt. Might
be the cheque issued by the accused to the complainaxxt for
supply of materials was dishonoured an the
Appellate Court, but the oomplaiiumt failed
material and failed to prove the Q3 Ea’
error on-rnm1’tt.cd by the AppcI1a£e.__ ‘A J
findirg of the Trial Court.
Accordingly, the
