IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE.
amen: THIS "me 225'? DAY 0; AUGUST 2003.
: BEFORE ;
BETWEEN:
$MT.VATSALA,
w/o KMAHAVEER,
AGED 39 YEARS,
R/at No.499, 8" MAIN ROAE),
2"" PHASE, J.P.NAGAR., A *
BANGALORE} §sown5%'ai;j-~.:%:" '
" V' " ' ' I " _ um
(By, :~4R.:{;:_HAas:i3a}ar4;i'r§~: ARIGA, ADVOCATE')
¥%AT'%+§.'N#§i§;A3 ::P:*$i3:iIA[L',,.%
s/0 aHu3.&.«aA:«. 'rzeeps,
L j"'%--kVi~1A3oa,% HQTEL. ¥v2';§f'§"¥-1 RUSAGAR,
NEAR KSF"<T"C"--«BU":'3" STAMQ,
% « .f§H§\'Z.i<;ABALLA5PUR,
.... RESPGFQDENTL.
(83! MFLN ,9. KALLESHGQWDA, ADVOCATE')
##3##
This Criminaé Appeai is flied under Secrtian 3'23 cf the
Code of Criminaf Procedure, against the Judgment ané
gj'
(NE
5..
Sentence dated 93.16.2603 passed in C.C. No.3S65?.'.2'€i_O§.
passed by the XVI Additional Chief Metropcxfitan M.ag4i;t§'a§§a,VV"
Bangaiore, etc.
This Criminai AppeaE, comirgg on fqr...%1e4arir:§'ih"i..é'.';Vdé'y,v'_the. V *
Court delivered the foflcwing: _ _
This Es an appeal fiied under':-*;.§tti:3n "3'?.8_V_<:sf..'thé1.%fé*V.'P'.C.,
by the Ceunse! for the appefilgnt 3u"d.§f31e'r}:t; dated
03.19.2003 passed in c.<:. 1%.3S'G'S?.?fiV0Q:'§f: fiig}5;$§d by the xv:
Addition? Chief Mej£:*a!.%;9._'E-itar}__ M.a'§é'stré«£é'._'~.B§_;j'§;1§io:'e, acquitting
the " éffence punishable under
Section 138 of i'.'i:».ex!\fe¢¢t_ié'£.:f_Eee':i:_t2§.%uments Act.
f%¢£s~.r_.:f..tvne case of the carnpiainaret ara as
faVi§e§$::§; " ' V .«
It..i's"ai¥égiuég.V.':§iat the accused had issued a cheque far
_ ~..$.$.'}.V.'40,.fi4bQf;xi.ééted 15.19.2091 drawn an State Bank of
Chikléabaiiapur. when the said cheque was presented
'Tj~.fQt"~.*ané;ashment. it was returned with an endorsement: "Funds
A§¥;I".~:.t,i'ff'§€i&¥1t". Thereafter. the complainant issued 3 lega% notice
fan 29.10.2031. Respondent repfieé to the legal notice an
‘i/’
was examined. Accereing to the agreement betweerirthe
games, profit and £055 of the business has te be
ameng the eertners. Ex.?.;f.—Cheque bearing
issued in favour ef husband of the co2j;z>ei;a::§’neVrét_Tfore:
Re.48,QG()!-. Accused had géven the sigv4ngdi”.béank ‘.:_heq:.§ee’;4 t’e ‘=,
the husband of the cempiainant fo”¥’=j;iE2.e pur;3eVse.”c*;f éV§:.;4J:us:EVVf1ess,
whéch was misused by the v<:;;:e::<rj:pEai:9i'e_:f;i:–:_';e 's-uA{n of 5!(e;§3,?S9j~
was given tea the husband at' the§;e'?r:§!ein.e.fitAA.';;§__may of cheque
and the beiarzce areeee§1'~§n e_es!3 Va:'hd*4.§fhL§'s"«fe.§t:f'has been proved
by the evidence– preedv"é;:':;'ed{ 'teV4441tee"*«a§:Cused, But? the Ccmmeéneet
states in her eii§:i4e;';.::eVV"'ihea$f_ Eéeeéfhusbend has net received em?
eV§:2e_ent,_~3g2tv$'%ze hes""ee§__e:xem§nee her heebend is {grave that
heT~§j:es; r'-zet xeeeixéefziv__E1s.53,?5Q;"– frem the accused. Therefere,
the fréaei '-f;'oau;:Vr"'E« '."_i§ei {§{fiat there is sefiécieet evieenee is shew
'7_thet the'.44£2:.:zs'eee'e.V e? the cereeéeénaet @335 received the eeie
.1 –.ee*:e'e,n§.*?:4em the eecusee. The 'ma: ileeri after ceneéeeréee the
ef bath sides, and eeeiysieg and epereciating the
e1;–«§.eie5:?§£.:e; has came te§ the cenciusicm that eccueed hes net
"ee_4"A"ceé;emittee the effeeee eiiegeci ageing: him end heme,
acquitted him ef the eeée efieeee.
if
Faeéirsg aggrieved by the game, cemp§ainant.T”””‘§}Las
pneferred this agpeai.
4* I have heard the iearned Cogggagfai fcr”t’ir:é:’_a,;;¥§§::é§E*::3z2′;:.V’4 ”
and the Eaamed Counsei for the respdnci’ent;;”= ..:’ A
5. Learned Counsei for”TV t§*zg a§§né:l£¢.n_tT’ $uw§;:n.it$~’3as
foitosws:
The beta! business §~:a;:’T.;::’a;ie;;:f: t’h’e[ -fiaaftnership deed;
appeiiant Ems!’ to the ewner 9? ‘me
bufldéng; as’:¥!”–P.V_;.-:.;’.8Q,a’;”?:i;V€}é»x’jfLfV~.€o ..V§h%:’zgcfiassed towards his share in
the busénegs; tEV’i«.’=’.~”~vT{‘éa.i:V€oA£§:f ?§s believed the issuance of the
cgfiéqua az:§us§i”f:32″‘Ia sum of Rs.:1.,4Q,,GOQ/- payable ts
thé'”A3’_p£:fé_E¥an§§s:.’a’fi§§&;;ted §n front ef the eiders at the time of
‘ ‘*A…..s;ettEerfie;§t ; a§;c.i.€§g*:i:: has issased a cheque was far Rs.3.,,4Q,§§G,+’«-
. f1;g33;§é:a»_;”ds tha f§na¥ settiement as he was net; Entendmsg to”
‘:._’_’V¥<;:.A\;_nt:§f§§::,;,e 'it:_. the beta business. The tréai Euége has erreneousiy
" –ViT";:: ejéee:§:!ed to give a finéing that the said cheque was not Essued
.::;=_',:; ;$:i*1e accused in favour cf the cempiainant, The Trier: Caurt
.. E*sas arrrmeausly came tattle cerzcmséon that there has fieen
g/.
gayment of Rs.S3,?59!~ to tiie gwéband of the appeitant by?’–the
accused. Even if it Es agaaumed that there was V.
the compiainarzfs husband it is net towards the
the debt and snare so discharge af the”ééé5%:%t’y”-.Ategt:éAT§t§’5_ §~g’?{iz:h “.
the cheque was issued. The fénciéng rece é*’c1a»::;€_ b3z t?»:fg–v_%A;§”r§.aE’~
is erroneous and hence, be saugbt te,éies;t aside ;th’e$ar?ia;” ‘
6. Learned Ceunséi~…_..%%;:e; *fihe;_V.§;é;*3;3s§’§:’dgnt mbmétg as
under: ‘
The a;f§a!%a’£i?.£t;#§;fg3V§2¥ainéétztf r;espondar§t/ accased and cane
Narayana$wa%r:3{–‘?,W’.2_. é::’;’té={_fes§”iiéte sartnershép ta start the
heteé busérga-55;, ‘fin far gniy séx marnths. Then that ‘mere
s}~;? a.é”*s;e;tf£%9s’;’aé*:*§’c bvetweefiyvihé parties and a settiement deed was
effé§tt.e §£.._Tbfiz€c4Vé3V’e.<;§§§ment has not been groduced befare the
Cfiuft v;€a:2~ '$3-wéw that mggasédezziz fled agraad to gay
"«figs,1',-»4Q,Q@G};'r érzfi $2 thég cermactien he issued a chasm, Ever:
., " .§%2<z@_§:=a§s;aunt ef Rs.S3,75§,/- was receivefi by the husband sf
V§:?ze a:Q_n?:pEa%nant; he has not man examined :9 show that the
$a.£c§' ammmt was mreived by him in connectisn wéth share
S "arr%;o2..mt cf' the campiainant in the partnership firm. There is a
ix
r=
. -:5 .
differemtra in the fink with regard to the figures and wcrds..__and
signature of the accused in the cheque. He further subm:’t$:’ftI*j7z’s-t_’
he supparts the impugned Judgement,
“I. The contention cf the !eva–m’ed, V’
appeiiant is that perusai of the impugne{i’.3u7é.TgAr}2af2’t*
the Order of acquittai and the view} :h_a”¥’fia% £3335 ” ‘
manifestiy unreasenable ancfiwas ;n–sf:..’§_vegf’a!L_._ If’t’he»..Tr§vv;$£ Court
Budgement found to be bas ed’_T’o:§’ reasoning or
there is mEs;§pprééi'”e;.%;;_oz3 !:h;é’é \:§::%e:1<V:Vé resuéting in manifesting
Efiegafitv theréihés Ce;§.ir'.{fvcé'n-.._:é:<3mine the evidence and set
asicie the Q–r::£er caf"a¢quVif%:aiAf-
_VVT§:é.*«¥.§%§a.r;:ed Counset for the appeélant further
subm itsAV”.th’a£’V fésfiendent agreeé to make payment and
“v: _EsVsuVec£ a’.4″‘:;hé:qJu锑Vfcr a sum 9? Rs.1,4fl,G9G/’- towards the
4: A$ef€V§e:me:z.t_ pféposai at the interv&ntisr’: of the we?!-wé5hers, and
the centention cf the respondent that a sum of
TRé–..:S3;?5G;’- was received by the husband of the zemniaénant is
“<,.4'u'v%.:';z.t;:€:;'re<::t, It has been further ccntenéed that ever; assuming
that there was a payment made to the husfiand ef the
M
C:
J
cempieinerzt, this was met towards discharge ef a Eéebéiity mere
so rewards discharge of the éiehéiéty by way of the eheqT1.EeEe
quesizien. Though it is centerzéed by the éeereed Ceuneeeié’
eppeiiarzt that an the aver!-wishers’ interventien, the ef_<;ctL:sefc£–_ V'
agreed te pay Rs.1,40,GOG/- anti in th§s;v'7cee"ne<:_t?ee
issued the cheque Er: question, the persee_s»:'-wrze p.a}z*f;i:;é'ea:te::§.";'*r'§V"
the settiernent have not: been exe're:E'r2ed sthe
cemmainarrt fie eetebéésh that .;.here=eiee.Z'e eettiemeet'. 'Eeen the
meteria! document viz" the se{t.?emee~V§t:'VdeeLe~};ee'_~_a!se net been
produced tee. eeEr2§§§er§'r§'er§t"— id prove that there was
settlement betere_er: _tiie_eer_npé:_a1.'§eant and the accused, It is en
ueeiseetedé' ufect t§1?ai:,.V _ac:f:'<3§'b§§-éiigf; "~:!egai_ 4
responsibiiity. In other words, tha c<L$7»;}dit_§<°::2:'
subject ta a charge er duty wh§c%'éTV_rVn§y b'e..j'isd%c§aE}3?AV.§:zf9V;c'Ledv.%
But, in the instant case, eyen t%:__
fir-m,_,V t?’:e_:;7%:;ajxa_:e1t9 a§p §;:’:**aa_§§3.the CM! Ceurt.
of the Partnership Act; prevédes f§r
:’v.:’AA”Ts€.’€:tE&m§eg: cf.-at’:_¢%*.r:e;sTr:t an dissoéutéon’ The Eeamed Caunsei far
“* -71iéj2e__ “»:je$pséé{§é’nt aise submits that as Gréginaé Emit
‘–V.§«:ce,TSa’§g:.’;*£j2:%f§Q3 was flied by the cempiainant: against: the accused
“T.§Fa’r.:;s_a_tf;§é§ng Em accsunts and aése ta recever the amcémt. if; is
net ciear as :3 have they arrived at the amczmt sf
R$,1;4G,QOQf« as a iiabitity gartécufariy when they faéied to
fig’
examirza the persans whee were present when the settéefiéent
tack piazza and aim faiiéna is grcduce the settienjen’tVV~::d§’éa;:§”
befcre the ‘ma: Coart, The Triai Caurt has t§*e7e’
evidence cf P.W.1 and aése B.ws.1 andggz
evidence am? has came to a cz3nVc§;s4s!oné’t§_1 at theJ,r:.;r;:riré’;:¥’a-iz*£’;aEit
has faééed to estabiish his <:a!2 th’é”Hs:;:{u:§é§§.\§r%;}c%p£é§e?VEaw.
11. The learned C9u:3;s,_;e £_.§or ti}:e*”reé;i§;1€Eant relies; on
the ciecssm ré;;:¢;:;~:eaw .§{ F{§”._’$H_NAVEANAREHAN BHAT vs.
DATTA”fPAYA””F§.”1:fiEi’3£§EA:,%jV'{.é€J’£§§*KER saw 738), wherein the
Apex Court has ha.é’id.: asVf££§i’wéfi..
é 5.-“(A3 .rsiea£ié’€)”¥éV Instruments Act (25 af 1881),
: ‘3T.1w3§va4:”‘Pt’e§arg1ation under msactien 139 mereéy
H “r§f§§.sg;%?iv.;3tien in favour of insider sf cheasga
_ that s;”ar:m:” has been Qsszied fer d§s:’:£*2arge of any
debt’ oihar iiabéiizy –~ Exéaence of Eegaihg
a’ e ‘c:ishomur cf ch&qu9.~Beferzca-Proaf-
Accused Tiflt requireé :9 step mic w%tness«box~ He
£9,
‘2 ‘”>
may discharge hés burden an basis of materEa!s””*–.T
aéready brcezaht en record –Question w%:et’k§’;erf”L:’«.[:”‘~_
statuterv firesumptécn rebuttec! Q?” net ~– Péé-aigt’
determéned in View sf other evidences en_..rre{:<§';*Q§ .
(C) Negetiabie Instruments' Act'
5.3.39-Presumptian :.:nder,r—___ ::z.ebu:;1ia: — ,a£g.:Ay _V cf :1 %
Cam'? -~ Presumptéon of énnésghce as '%'..£,i_r1":=E!:%.':
and dectrina ef raygrse 313::Efieh"~.._i_ntreduv::e:»d.'iby
5.139-Should be ¢ieaf":%a_§;'~;;tees,':_% t+ja:5an<V.9f.v'éé§h -'Cavé.é~;_'fV..'–'*'
12$ Laaréedv€ic{§r§$ai:'4Vfé_f"tbe respondent also refies on
the 3udgmen:'%'%«.:gs .tsie_ of MfS.Q-SOFT SYSTEM &
s.c2LAuT1Q :és%V%%L"(9) L"m%., %%%% ms. H.N.GIR.£DHAR (ILR 2903
KA1R,&'ATi«EKA..§4~3};:iév?3_ere§n thés Court has hem as uader:
'**:-5%.); :$¢EG5TzAaLE :N$'m:m5NTs AC3: 1331»-
§':':*:c":?1]m;%""3.3s« Object and scape ef – 245m, The
AA Qbjézztlof Sectéan 138 of tha Act fig ts Erzcuicate faith
, iiizftrhe efficacy cf Banking operatéoas and credébiléty
transaczténg business on szegotiawe instruments
-~ The Act makeg it céear that the intent of
Pariéamarzt is that honest drawer sheuid not suffer
fx
6%
\.#<.j
at the mechanésatien of dishenest of drawe;25:a~~–a}.g1;:§§_'__j' ?
the éntentéars of drawee bacames Emp6rtant;?._ '%
(B) NEGGTIABLE ZE\£STRU;;*?!E!§}fSjj, #«;'F,. 'V,
SECTIGN 138- Offence under -=A:"Cén§_".zr'actp'E;_§9;tv¢.eiar%
the parties – Breach 'ef":§'n3:g'actA"'—V__Ch5é§2.;gAe*:..§v*aVs
issued for 9.3.2 Lakhs byL4L"'w£ay.u_Vof 'tr5ai':§a5:ges; ~ .
Whether attracts tézé"prev'§A§E§é§s':.;ef:S.gct&e:2"A133 :3?
the Act ~ on FACTS, '§H$E_LB . is ;;';uiE9;%;€v"a.__matter af
civfi transact_%{:n__ wh%'t'h'~::§%é§e '-.§':!y§£ lC§:e§e¥;2'E£ has ta
afijudicatg %§fn§:§;1i['La§~$,a:e:é'taé{::"és _iEc; Q!ie€é~iar there is a
brea::ag§*e§;*?*;er:t’ and whether tha very
aondufiLéf%t?;’e’».ci:§e’%f3′;2§é’§«:2Léréé is without any biamésh,
Ea _a_sepafl:’a.tVé en’qué}*yVE?Qf be heici if neeé be — Omar
tgf cEqjA:V’2E!?t_a£ ¥s” ju s~t.i.€s ad .”
13;» “ET,a;£<:En'g §:':t_;fo account aéé asgects ef the case and 3:53
the r*§§a§;é.r§.a§ '5px;él:ea'%*TL5k:é record and after carefuéixg anaiysing am
vV'7'TT._ap9raE$§2§§ ?§j*:é.g#'%$ence dated an veceré, I find that the firming
.1 Sig Triai Cezgrt Es yeasenabée ané (mes net ::a%§ far
V *_v.§%n1:e'2férgirééé and thés apgeaé is davcié of merits.
2'
6/
iii
3.4. in View cf the above, éiscussion, E 933$"-. f!':-.;e
foiiewérzg:
kg
This Crimina! Apnea? is dismissedg
*KSM
