. ,Prop_r’i:e1;<_:§r af
"¢_a~ro._'is/V1,, '6?*'«..;i:-_ss
V . ¢By”‘”sx1v’–. A.’n*:’: Patil, adv.)
, _ fhis Criminai Appeal is filed under sec.3′?8
praying to set aside the ordax of
dated 24/12/2094 passed by the 13″‘
Azi,d.1. C.1r£.M.& XX Addl. $.C.J., Bangalore City in
*(.’.’.C.No.1?39?/2003, aczquittiug the ;respo::deni:–
“accused for the offence punishable under Se<::.38
_;-
IR THE HIGH com? or KARNATAKA, ‘
DATED 33315 was 3″‘ my oEA»VA?31I%\r.”‘é °’¢*9’4
BEFORE V ‘ _ ‘ V V
ms HON’BI.E MRS. ausiéirm;
(‘:RIMI2\’fAI. APPEAL 223/2:505. T_
BE EN . A .
Sri R. Manjunath, ‘V A
Son of M. Rangahua _’ _
Aged. about .32″ ”
No.76/1, Stflffxgsgil’. ” ‘ ” .
Bangalotey 5£o”‘G<.i;9,_ ' ' . .. Appmnmm:
(By Sr5}.__A._' -shat, adv.)
srzl.
M’/5. ‘L’s.:a.;L’* a” A. J.rii§§s
Banga§.;erea.”_’5_6t}; O09. . . . RESPGNDEN1’
of 13.1. Act.
6-
oeened in the Court and marked as EX.D-3. The
fact remains that the notices sent Jwnnaer
Certificate cf Posting to the two addresses are ‘_
served on the cemplainant fer the simnierreasenh
that the address given at Ex{§-4_e§gfl§¢hgise;fifi§’?
address given for the registered host is fine has
the same. In the absence ef any materiel to show
that the address of. the Wcohpiainant’ shewn at
Ex.D-4 is different ifrontEther=aderess he is
residing, iittswehidhrhe ‘a. different situation.
When the«Cempiainant”asmits the address mentiened
both innder*icertifieéte of posting and the
xiregistered post is the correct address, one has
vEto= pregame qthat the notice under Ex.D-3 sent
throagh ‘Certificate of posting was very much
favaiiabie.te the complainant when he sent notice
‘:etn’E;fh;4 an 23.4.2993. He was aware of the
tfcentents of EX.P–3 wherein the accused had
‘uiéenanded fer the return of documents M the title
Udeeds pertaining to his property which were kept
with the compiainant. it is also mentioned in
this notice that inspite ef the ,»a¢¢gse§”,
requesting the compiainant to re£nrni=nthe»
decuments and cieiiver back p;’3eAeessic~n .;ofV”‘»:>_r:e”*of
the room by receiving Rs.25,G§Q{?yfhe eenplainenfii
demanded Rs.1, so, 000/~. .1’1fifi}nara 3 of this notice at Ex.Dm3, he
i*w_Cieariy.l3says that as collaterai security
vx«.¢emplninant also obtained from the accused a bank
hwnieheque of Carperation Bank with his signature
ifaffixed. The bank cheque of Cerperation Bank
definitely would mean ‘blank cheque’ as the
cheque :4ith the signature of the accused. The
-19-
favour of the complainant but however ‘it»_isR~d
rebuttal presumption. InvW~the 1 afiéé§CéV flof§
dispelling doubts indicated in tfié n$tgée:qf ffié .
accused, which was his’ §efencé* %n. the §rivéte
complaint under secf 138 L§E thg N}I. AéE, the
cemplainant has utfiéf§y_§éi;§5*fi§ establish that
the cheque unde; Ex.E:i wag §§3fi¢fi fly the accused
towards his lié§ilit§&of”Rsy2QO0}CGO/*.
AccQ;din§i§g_:he appéal_i§ dismissed.
Sdf-
Fudge
5V.éak