1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF' OCTOBER 2010 BEFORE ' &' THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE CRIMINALAPPEAL 1rsiO."110A7:3/2.V'6f()'%._ V: O' B BEN: _ O. .. Somalingappa, Major, Occ: Agriculturist. R/O.ir1duva11iTq: Sorab, Dist: Shimoga. ' . APPELLANT [By Sri Basa1za1'aj .Ka'.feddwy_,-- Adv.) Jabbarsab _ ' _ S/O.Pate'1~~£Inam Sabj _ V Maj Or, Occi:"'«COntra,ct0.r " " R/0.' ;RaghaveI'3d_rVaV Extn. Kankeri, .iiTq:v.'fSor;;ib, Dist: Shimoga. . . . RESPONDENT [By Sri Arun K.S., Adv.) .' ' Appeal is filed 11/ 5.401 Cr.PC praying to set étsicie thé judgment dated 16.1.2006 passed in Cr1.A. /oefon the file ofthe sq, FTC--I, Shimoga. V._i"p_This Criminal Appeal coming on for hearing this day. - the Court deiivered the following: JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the complainant’§1S§8.ilingffthe’ordeij
dated 16.1.2006 passed by the p
in Criminal Appeal No. 1/ 200.6.’ V
2. The complainant is said:to_be a accused
and the accused whc) the FWD and
Zilla Panchayath. for financial
assistance. paid Rs.50,000/–
as hand”Iona-nip:and:’:ti3’nvard’s ‘repayment of the loan, the accused
issued by on 16.4.2002. On. presentation
of the “it_’V-was Vdishonoured for insufficient funds.
~.ThevifeEaft’e:1;, ..1¢ga1Vfno*tic’e was issued to the accused. Since the
make payment, complaint came to be filed.
after enquiry, has held that accused was
ff”=~’«.___V’guiity ” the offence and awarded a compensation of
yi”i.§sV.7fsf’.*0oo/-, out of which, Rs.65,000/– shall be paid to the
hcoimplainant as compensation for the loss suffered by him.
W
3
Against which, the Appellate Court reversed theffinding on
the ground that it is a fashion to collect to
file a complaint under Section 138 hiegotiahle
Instruments Act. The Appellate
the decision reported in 20Qfi_=CCfimesV 1
of M.S. Narayana Merton @ to opine
that the cheque given4_”‘a.s bounces, does not
amount to offence etc. A it A
3. HaVing’fheard._ appearing for the
parties;’it’e’isecV.gn;oticé:d- “Appellate Court proceeded with
an approac.h ought to have transacted
through cheque.Va-nci–._llW:;thout accepting the version of the
«..conip1laina11.t., disrI1’is’sed the complaint by setting aside the
The Appellate Court is shown to have not
dealtthe in the proper perspective. Keeping in View the
l3″=-~.___”-»presur13.ption available under Section 118 and 139 of the NI
pV”‘:lAct.Jt;he Apex Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan,
reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898. has held that initial
RM
Judge
4
presumption is in favour of the complainant and negative
onus is on the accused to disprove the transactoion not by
mere explanation, but by proof of exp1anation,~«~~-I11;’of the
above, the impugned order is liable to be
Accordingly, the appeal is order
passed by the Appellate set’ .’:”iv?’he matter is
remanded t0 the APP?’3fi€-§’ie’ ‘fo1f.l..ldisposed of the same in
accordance withlaw opportunity to
both the to appear before the
Appellate Office to send back the
records
54/as