High Court Karnataka High Court

S R Bhaskar Reddy S/O Ramappa vs P Gopala Reddy S/O Bheemappa on 24 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
S R Bhaskar Reddy S/O Ramappa vs P Gopala Reddy S/O Bheemappa on 24 July, 2009
Author: Arali Nagaraj
  

IN THE HIGH ceum 0:? KARNATAKA AT gA?s;c;ALoRE
DATES Tms THE' 24%} my OF JL1LY':'2[§%§g%%%'
BEFCBRE  " « M' H V' A  V
THE HQNBLE MR. J1}-S'i'E'x'3E A'A'¥§éi;i:Vf¥I;$'§A.RAJA A u   
CRIMENAL A?P1§:;ési;;'4"?'<3.e'73*,sQ65? F '

§ETWEEN: 'T % A T 

SR. Bhaskar Reéifiy,

3/9 Ramappaa 

5:32 y€:ar$, _  1    .

Occ: Bus owner 3,1233, :~:.'*§*it:_u£¥:1:f"i.st;' " 
R;'o.Jai11«-€;t0}on§:, :   

Behind    
ch1:radu:~ga':'5'<:?    .   A AWELLANT

A%gaj;"s;~: RS. Dabaii, Adm}

V'  k Vi~'..::{}:};;é:};*3,:'7Reddy,
A  SfG.Bh$£:n1appa,
 ézgs: 56-{l=3z*ears,

EH-{.S(:I'ifiC€iSiZ1€I1 and Agrictilturist,
R;'.«3'LP£x}jari Ttfimmiakmahatty,

 AA ' '=.,.NaI1I1i¥a}a F'{)St,
" -. _.€.iZh31}a}«;e:*a Taiuk,

Chitradurga i3istI'ict»5'?'7 5:22 . ¥ EES?{I1N§EN'{'

(By Sr: SS. Patii Crughal and Sri: Sanka: M, 'fenagi,
Acivsy}

. 

“}

This Cr}. Appeal is flied under Sectien 378(4) of 611136
praying to set aside the juc’£g11e1′;t and oxfier dated 37.. 16.2008
passed by the Court of Additional Civii Judge (J1;’. D11.) 85
gH%FC, Chfinxhnga an (X) NoJl3Gf2004 aegufieng the
accused/Ieseomdent fer the effenee p/L1/8.138 ed?’ Act.

This Crl. Appeal coming on for x d%~1yT,.e

Ceurt delivered the feliowigngz

JUD@M§&?2eeeh””

Though this Appeal is ‘iéeeted ‘fo_i*:– eefieiidefingwwme

appiications for cond.d1:aatio;1’me§’e–:ijie§.é,:;%j a13d fg’éaI1i: csf special

leave, igavéiagj’eg&£f%i’~1;gii”efiie..rmtere of the judgment and order

of a.cq_11it.3«;é;1,’_4ti3.e for final disgosal.

Q Sri RS. fiabaii, learneé eeuneei fer the

:!:1§§;f)_e’Vi}.eL.¥”:ii:««..ef~” €35-figslainazit are heard on merits. ?e1’L:se<i, the

'w';§+:i§ix1eI}.t and order and alse ihe enfire materiai

'fr;u:1é i::.§3:'1e ariginal recercis ebtained fI'{)IfI} the Trial Cieurt.

3,5 Stated if: brief, {he ease of the aevpeflant W

" V eempla.i3:1aI1t as .*E:'€£?€i'I'6d in his complaint filed under Section

200 C:1?C is as under:

(…,~’r\.?””\.¢””

fa) Cm 18.4.2003, tile accused bormwed frzmi the
cemplainant 3, sum of Rs.95,00CI/m fer mtiating his
family nmessities. On the said data, ‘elm ‘issued

to the camplainam: EXP} cheque for ..T’s:1§n.V>ef

iRs.95,0()O/-= on the same date pr0mis5T,figVViié;j1t4.iii?’

amount would be repaid fig) -1£1″1:.§’:

within a period at’ two II1cS1:tb–s.z Tim-2 ‘~acc1;§é€:d”‘a,1so

prc:>m.ised the <::0rnpIai1§ai*;tt..V{hai'- "§§:;if';~eq1;i€ wcmld

be ancashed cm being preégefitag it it'; Béémk.
(13) The campiéfirjgnt;_pfé':3§1ij;i*:::1 )the said rzzheque to

{E}; B arfi§'L'v7§::«1f;::'%t mibé retumed with endorsement

as "§:;ss::%£'£i¢ig:9:fi' Therefara, the complajfiant gm".
igssuafii-.._g:at:;£¢3rA},?-,_iitiifiztze dated £.'?'.2€}Q3. The accused
_"§:Z'.€(:'3é§'J¢"(i an 9.7.2833. 'F136 accused sent rgpiy
1:<3}ii27»Vi.:§f;.:f;i:§«–..§i1_*1e compiainant de:1yi:£1g that he borrowed the
from the compiaiflant; as alleged E1: {be
'A " making further aliegafions againfiz the

. ucjxizrgxpléxinafitn Since the: accuged did {mt compiy with
' " * fghéd $ta.mi:0ry §1OTIiCf3, £116 c<)1:;1p}ai11ar:(£ filed the said

V' €,§GII1§§§8if1€.

5%, Om apprmialiicarz 0f the 617:1} evidence 9%’ ?W3 and the

dacuments at Eixsfii {0 P6 produceci by the aaznfpiaizzarzii and

(…….(\.–“\…»–=–.

oral evidance af SW33. {(3 :3 and the <ioCuInagfi;:s– ':6

B41 pradxxcad by the accused, the, Trial §§;%fir;i.sséfl

c0:11p1aim; Qf {ha appeliani —

acquitted the rézspendané; -‘z:.:;c1.1$é:::i z:>f E3516’ ‘;cs.fjf_¢I1C_}3 ‘under

Section 138 of the Negotiable: I_:é*st:i1;i;£1§6i3’t?s’ 188 1.

5. 011 carefxfl raadifig ‘Hie judgmem, it ‘m
scan that the €_301;r$;.f ac¢;:1iittc:}:iV:VVf’tl1e amused on the

gmunds thiifi £0 fistabéigka ‘ihai be 1611?;

Rs,§5,€§{§{§;~»’ ié»”‘V:3{‘;z%::’at;€:;i$::€1’rim dated 18,4~.2QG3 as dapessd

by him ag@&%:;w = tha cgmpiaifiant alga failad :0

, ” €:sta .f:é§§§;$1*i~?}:at $16 capar.::’f:.§: is 16:12:’: is the amused that

2::j;.1s::1:: esf 17£1i}ii&:§«f_f it is 3130 sb$e:”=s;ec’: “ms the Trig} Caurt in the

’11::§ugr§é{i”~”.'[j1;ci§ner:t tha: the accused has S{1CC€§SSfi3;Hj§f

:*ehu”fé;€é.,fi1h’i€i presumptiau is bift drawm under Sec’i:i0:1″139 of

A if 2335:: famafi cf the complainant.

6. Excfipt his era} €’s?id€I1C€ as H3115 the cmmplainani
has met. adéugezi 33:13:” other eviéence eitheg’ {Kai 91′

fiG€’L1]fi1€I}i33″§§ 11:3 $ubst3:1tiate his €8.36 that hfi 16:2:

e.\-“K”‘t.—-\,

Rs;’95,C)O{)/« to the accused on 18.4.2083’ ‘cgpy

of reply notice given by the 2;2;(:(3i–.1S€I:’§_4 “ré4s3}§:)z1§r:§e’L’v..to ‘ ithfi’

statutory noiitre issued ‘:0 him i3y cdr;3,p1ai::a;t§i:;~_. E=ie ha $J

sspecifically statfici in said that he “iabvéil the Said
amount of Rs.95,000.,§– tine e§>mp1a3nant on
18.42003 as {Ex.P4). It could
bfi SEEK} furfhéfifi that the accused
has cheque in qut’–the’ (Bus) bearing Registration N.KA-»

16[,£:’x-?99’9′ s$?a$«”‘$tan§ing in the Karma of his éaughtarm ”

” V. = ‘Szim and the said cheque came ta} be

I Vf:1iséua{ée”i..E>3-9′ V”thi; complainam.

L’ -. is pfifiiiifilit to Z1()t€ that despite the accused

nd;rt~”~:_;1’1yi:”1’§, at the earliest opportunity, in his reply noiice, the

‘ ‘faficgatiafi sf tha casmplalnant that he bomfiwed Rs.95,GG{}/~

” -‘ fi’m§11 the eompiainam: on i8.4.2C:O3 and ha issued the said

cheque on that dag; itself towards repa§’;{1:61’31: Qf the said

.-..§”‘/\–«-

ammmt, the cofilpiainant did not choosa “£0 fithe
loan transaction by adducing acceptabie iiififiesides
this, though it is afiegeci by _afccL;s”e:i4*:.:i,’;j;: “ré§>1y
notice t.hat the camplaifiant V’
much ef amouni to the ‘é_C%€§S€d§”- :10:

placsd ariy materiazi. 0:1 ‘VVEQ he had. the

capacity ti) lend that Vtcmhe accused.

aomfblainariii”£x)*”}i)i’:}§?é”%.§gf1€zi there €XiS{€”SCi, a3 (Tm. the data of the
chaqué :11 quves”:i_0.’fi enforceabla debt payabiii to him by

¥:h6;_§ ac%cuse5é.~ .._ ‘§’h€ cemplajnant has miserabiy failed to

:c,’s.is’:Vc1″;<.é1§;g<~:–..4VA'f:'¥i~"–:e_: said Vburdan. Thersfore, the Trial Cimirt has

in itg judgmeni that the coflzgaizzant faiiaé E0

{hat ha lent :0 £3.16 accusad the said amaurzi; 3&1;

" V. navarrsfi i;n'tf{1e coizzgjiaimz and as depessd in his fiifidfifiilfi' The

Csurt has rightiy 0§1)S€I"'if$€i furthar in ihe inilpizgned

V fudgznent that fheugh tbs prasumptien could be émwn uniier

S€C'§ii6§T"i 139 9f the ERIE Act in favour af the canzpiainzzmt, this

.&