ANI;3_{
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE '
DATED THIS THE 19"" DAY OF NOVEMBER
BEFORE_
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE HuLiiV*Ani.G;iéguviiusnin
CRIMINAL APPEi§~I;'1*~I().1i)'61 0:3
BETWEEN: ' A
M/s. Shriram Transport Finance CO.:'iLtd.:;'~
(Earlier known as"Shrira:r1" i11'.iestn1e'ntS }Z;td¢,i' i
Having its Regi0iA1>?1.i:.1)f'fiC*.e at K'.H;'R6ad,..Banga10re,
And Branch. 0fifi.ee7a.t'Udupi,' ' V' v .
Represented .by~ii_i_t's;_ G.P.A.._VHijld:e'1~, 1
Represe11itevd.. i cer--L_e gal " . V
Sri.K.'Jasud_eir2é; » ~ ..APPELLANT
(B y Sri. anna )
:2 » KElI'.E}€"?n§' .
S/0 Is'1n.ai«1, 9'
V.a1aChi1 "Fl5ijeta1'i§i{0use,
Adyar Post:
L V Mangaiore. "RESPONDENT
"ii ("8:>:)i"Sri.P.Karunakar, Adv.)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of
Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the impugned judgment and order
dt.22.8.2008 passed by the Court of the V JMFC, Mangalore,
?}j'(L;fl
2
DK., in C.C.No.591/2006 »~»~ acquitting the respondent/accused
for the offence P/U/S.138 of N.I.Act.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for hearing this day--,uthe
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the complainant’ order ix
passed by the V JMFC, Mangalore,
dated 22.8.2008, in acquitting t’he:’accused’- the
complaint.
Accofdin.gi3’«to*the~___comp1ainant, the accused having
entered into’ hire “purcihase–.aigi’eement with the complainant in
respect of vehiciedbeariing N0.KA«-20-3906, towards discharge
v the said had issued a cheque for Rs.1,40,000/- drawn
on.”‘FederaI’j_ Ltd., Kodialbail, Mangalore, which on
preserztation, came to be dishonoured as ‘account closed’.
V”-Vi_AA_C_ciO__rding1y, after issuance of legal notice, for non–payment,
___the complaint came to be filed. The trial Court, after enquiry,
has taken note of the contention of the accused and certain of
WX
3
the documents produced on his behalf to the effect that the
complainaI1t–company at the time of entering_..___ into
hypothecation agreement, had obtained blank cheques”
accused towards security and the same has been.__rr1isc-sedll ”
filling up exorbitant amount. Further; taking, into-1
the complainant has also seized the Vehicle andv.s’::ld”the
despite the accused giving noticel’f’to_lthe_Vconjgiainant rgot to sell
the Vehicle below RS.l;7’5.l,0O0}lf, “rria.l.”copurt has dismissed
the complaint.
trial. ____ __Court referring to the decision in
‘M;S;l\lar;{ya;;;.g1:l’i\f¥penon Vs. State of Kerala and another reported
IE7 wherein it is observed that, ‘standard of
lgproof “woi1ld be preponderance of probabilities and could be
_d’rawfn not only from material on record, but also reference to
…_c:ircumstances upon which he relied’, and thus, accepting the
contention of the accused, although has opined that the
xv
complaint is maintainabie, but, on perusing further documents
and also having noted that the vehicle was
Rs.ZE,65,000/- and the accused had also made’i.i:.pay:nent’t
Rs.92,000/~ i.e., in excess of the anioiint
that the compiairaant has filled up the eiicess “amo’u~nti’–..p
dishonestiy and the matter is nature;-has’Vdisnaissed the
complaint.
5. It app_ear:~it;’s’t_he.Vaccosted inadeiipayment of some of
the insta’ihneints.i ithatvthe vehicle over which the
Eoan was ad_vanced’.”Jseized and soid below the price
quotedby the a_ccuVsiedi.7_i The loan advanced is Rs.2,30,000/-
it iai;cig{s per the claiinbf the compiainant it is Rs.3,97,0o0/–. The
ground that, how the amount of Rs.2,30,000/–
bec’an1e,__’Rs.:3′,97,000/-Vwithin a span of one year and eleven
monthsiihas not been explained by the complainant and, what is
the ‘exact amount due to the cornpiainant is also not made
known, has dismissed the complaint.
91*’
6. However, in the circumstances, without commenting
much on the merits of the case, to put an end to the
the accused is directed to pay another Rs.4{),QQC!£ _
months. Accordiragiy, appeal is aliovfed
back the records.