High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Devaraju Prop: M/S Sri Lakshmi … vs M/S G R Developers on 22 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Devaraju Prop: M/S Sri Lakshmi … vs M/S G R Developers on 22 August, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
 Sri €:.:Re(_;"-E);§'r'a:tx9; ¥<I:r,i_$h_if.:a)

IE Tfifl I-IIGH CQURT OF KARHATAEQA AT SAHGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 22*" DAY 0? AEEGUST, 2098
BEFORE-

THE HON'BLE« MR.-JUSTECE SUBHSESH BABE

CRIMINAL Rmlsxczx PETITIGN NQ.10Ei5} :200?... ' , --:   

BETWEEN:

Sri ifievaraju,

Proprietor,

M! S.Sz'i Lakshmi Casiings,

I"~I<:-.f3C:/'3, Eshwara Cc-mpiex,

151 Grass, 5'31 Block, 3"' P11a.s¢:*.,

BSK 3"' Stage, near 

Theatre, Ba;t1ga1orc~85.  *    
  PETITEONER

{By  K. N arish,  &v--..€'s:%3téL}. 

_é.5§..Q1

M} S.G.!42.D€ve1«;1pers, *
No.14?-5--143, 15' FEQGT,
t'3(R=P1a:za, i3,_'§ff_3uR'ea:i, . _ 
Basavanagi1}_idi,    V
B:.afiga;0mj'36Q'.L§Gé,  ..... 
(reprer,st::,:r,1;e::1 by its' A' ' 
fvianaagiiig P:41'in_t£I',.  .V V "

. i€ESf3QNDE3?€'1'

V (By S:ti.N.i\LRajurs., Eiiiziz)

 _ T1iis {$31.39 is Lfilcd u/$31-:;;*?g:} R/W 401 of r;::,p.«:::' praying

  to_ 'set Vasidsz the jutigeszment anfi order passed an 6.37.2006,

é:~..:";fmti<:x§: Ad:i1;AA»V  

Magistzate. Bangalore. confirmed in Cr1.£;;bi»:$;--1;.?s1? 

16.73309? on the file ef the Fast   '
2. Rssgaonxzient compléfilant  a:1 o:i1er fer

supply of £11311 Casting 1:0 the   in termg of

EXP8 d_ate€3.fl?.'   o'§'" saiC1 Work Order, the
enfire: suyp}yVV"xi2%§.s--   days from the date of the
artist ant} ?"f.,§?s.'%rer day payabic for the delayed
Sniiijéplgff  the  'is not made in time, the secmtity

ch§§q1;&"gi§§cn'E:4y' Vt}i%:..1§t:1;itio11er wouid he encashed,

3; findgr Work 91115: the ccmplaizaant was is pay 50%

 Aadvaiicafamcunt. It is stated that, '.7S,0O0,!'- was paid as
gégahxst the Said aclvance. peéiiioner had issued a
 by Way of 3,15-zzurity which wguld be encashabi-:2 in the

 Ae:s._ri£:';1t of mm supply sf materials in time. Since the geiitioner did

S not make supply wiizhin 1? days, ezompiaitlazat pmsented the

chtsqutz fax" encashment. It was rcturnad 11-}? the Bank with

enfiorsament "ixxsuflicient fund" on 11.5.2904. Thereafter at the

cx.J_



..3,.

request of the pefitionar accused, the cheque was 3333111
psmsented on 9.6.2904 and the: same wag again m1:u:rned.;"f»:1r

"izlsuificient fund". Thereafter, the complaint vms filed. '   " 

42 One (2.R.G0pa?.akrishna was examined as '-léw T'
produced E:-:s.P1 ta P13. The prstiticner g:5fAA}1ii2:as-_:.*;3f  

DW} and 33.39 pmduced Exs.D1 t-:2: 1319. '!;};11f:  Ca:»,¥I;v;-z_.".t'z~3.4,11:<§. 

Lowar Appefiatfl Court concun'--3nfly'--v.Vl i€3d that, "111cV'vpffi:1$é:é is
proved.
5, Learneezi calms-:3} fer' flit: §::i§iii0z;érV"»31iL1mittsd that,

campiajnt itself is net  as?'-.3118 "cs;-heque is given

iiowards s€c1i;°it}r_ 9.;I:;{fi'--'V3§?;;§:=i';'vQfigiéilfuréeablfi. In thi$ zegald, be
relied on the    and submittz-:1 that,
in the 'i3I0;*i<'. 'V Q.1'<:¥€"i4_,   1'?'.:{1ays supply was is be made.
H'§;s§§§%e§Ver;  {§i'~r1:Ia}?;  couid be Emried. In this regard,

he  D4 and D5 anfi submitted that, there

 _j3.&%:s.9. a ch£?§1g6V_  suggested by the camplamant and an
 es;-f this?' Ebert: was a deiay in making supply, as $"E.lCh,
 44j".fl;}€.  of enforcing the cheque does not arias. patticxxmly
. ----a'{;«2f;§."s5'V_'ii}f secuzity, it cannot become a debt and it is uncertain

' L j  

6. Lsazneé counsel for the respondent submitted that,

Ex.P8 is not Eu dis;:>u’z.e. in terms ef Ex.F’8, Rs.?’5,GOOj ~ was paid

as an advance to the accused and in turn accused had given 23.

..4,..

cheque as a sacuxitjg. Furtlzsr submitted that, within 17 days the
supply was made. No supply was mafia in time, I1-:31′ the

complainant suggzésied any change

referrtad £9 31: Exs.D’.’25. D3, D4 afld DE”)

suggesteé by the complainant near there is any 3

in design. The de’5~ _ig:;

are net thy: d»:*$ig*n..’eit’1:I:f

before the Court to Show that the c0m};§iéiii§.§:at_ had-i’s1 1_§gg§sfiédVV

change in design. Peiifiouer has not p1*<3'<.?i:=r__i thebV_:Aa'i11e'; ;¥{ci" V

referrszé to the lsgal netice dated '1vL3'I'?',2()O4;~- .D£:$§ite".b9fW'1he
senrice of legai notice, no I'€}}j§4' is gixtsii. '£31-51*; was $a"c:h;€é2.t::gz5; in
design or accused was not Iiaiéifi to' t1_1;§'—s§;};r;{§"u;1t, he cmzld

not have kept quit €V£I}:éfiET "z.2::¥tie:e.

‘7 . between the pzaxtias,
them was a ‘~:€”3:iT–~§r0n Casting by the accused
tea the’ Cr;-mp;_£su.i:za¥1t’-.::f_itLb.i”;1 . it is also mat in dispute that.
R_s’;?§§OO’»3g of acivan-::s t0 the. accused. T213

9.-;:<§;1s€é 1§.aL1 isgéuéxi E3; —.r_;heq12e by way of secrlszrity. No doubt, the

:"V"L._§;§:c11:i1..j§f Véfifome uniesg accused btiiflellliifi liabl-3. In
gage, fl'1e was 1101:. made and accussd had recaived
b},?..3x.7a:;;r czf advance. If that is. $0. accuaed became Iiahkt

fixfi adtzzazxce ameunt. Accused has not pmmizci 1:115

' ~._kACl1é:;r:§;g§é"ef9¥€3igI1 3101" has proved flilat hf: haazi mack: :'-;u}3p§y in 17

The dcscuments produced at E:-:s.D2 to D5 are neat either

aédmsseci to the compiainant nor $31:-:re is any' matrzrial ':0 Show

that 1:136 cemplainant had scsughii for chgmge 0f dmignt If there is

-5-
delay can the part of the accused himself ta suppiy the matszarial,

he became liablfi to {gay Rs.?5,f}{)€)/ –, which he had received and
for which he had issued the cheque. It is mm the amount
become uncertain. The: amount bsceme certain in v*i«:*:§;*.r ”
supply not made in time. in ‘ixiew of this evidence, T’
any error in the judgements of ‘Elm {3{)1I.1x’t;ib’V§A.=Aia::’-‘;’n7’ ,«
have concuzrenfly found that, the: efiefgce ”

Section 138 of the Negotiable l:1s%3’1.11nc§1 i:3b Act is–. S

8. At this stage, leaxneti:Co_un:§é’i’f:§;~jyggfitionfif éizbmits
that, the trial Court: has impeged I,20,0G{)} ~

The same may be

9. Leafned ‘c:o11:i5é;’f;..}4for_£i<3.§:M'"rgsfpondent theugh se1'i0us1}*

objected. submifiefiééhhafg afé3§asi.'LRs. 1.06.001)!» be ordered.

' –.1G."vC$ézzs:Lric'£'i11g botiiiilfze submissions. the sentgnce of the

tzial T. in so far as the mmpensafion is

' Vv*g:<3Vncerzie:1 The_séfitcfice of the trial {Smut is modified,' instead cf

Rs. }.2f}%{§G{)} ~, it is made as R's.1,0-5.000/–. Out of Which,

5 I:bv:: ~ is entitéed to mceive R$.1,(){},@00/~ and

/ ~ towards 512$ 1:0 be CI'€dit*3d in the accemlt 01? State, In

V"-..d»:f:'e:111t, the accused to undergo sentsnce (pf 'CWO mcazzths simple

L' sgjgmsonmsnt.

The accused is peimiited, £9 drspesit thc fi,1:3.€: amount after

dedzzcting the ameunt already ziepszasited.

Accorvdingiy, this revisian stands dispssed Qf.

mp; —