IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANc3jALd'1§Ei§*~. " Dated this the 16"'c1ay of November, A Before THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HtJa..UvA'D1 p
Criminal Appeal 620. dd ‘
Between:
SriG0bind Ram Ganoornal? 68 yrs _ –
R/a Flat # 403, 404, R’aniya Residency”
13′ Main, 1″ Cr0ss..I11d1’§1negarIStaegvee »
Bangalore 560 033.’ –::._ ‘ .
Appellant
(By Sri c R
And: d d d A T
Sri Arun Verma
Abeedm fiftterprise ” . _____ .. .
‘1_174; 12′”*a Main ‘
HAL’ H ‘Sta.g1e;.Indivranag_ar i
fitnanthakrishna Murthy, Adv.)
V’:-V C:rdirt”;«ina1 Appeai is filed under S.378(4) of the Code of Criminal
H 1?freeed’t.1re praying to set aside the order dated 31.3.2008 acquitting the
V in CC 26298/2002 by the XIV Add1.CMM, Bangalore.
The Appeal having been reserved for Orders; on 29″ September,
2010, the Court defivered the £”‘e}10’wing:
complaint and acquitted the accused of the offence under S.§1~3S_p’cf_i__tlilc:
Negotiable Instruments Act.
A perusal of the judgment of the trial.–cour.t. previealslthat, invihe
course of crossexamination the accused was able toi”nigl:light”
misuse of the cheque tendered by him during 1992 andithat”-tth’e”‘d’ate
written by him earlier was materially b’y__the complainant by
forging the initials and he has presented itheiiclieguie. toil;-e bank and as a
consequence fca§qiu§,’ihe”‘a§Vcused is before the court.
The trial courtiihas also pa-ceased has examined himself as
DW 1 and also exan’i.ined DW thehand writing expert. The accused
transacition””and as per the understanding, the loan
advahceid_biy ».co1npl.ai_nant was to be repaid in ten months at the rate
Rs.3,00Qi/~ pcriiiii-oiith and while advancing the loan amount, the
” -«complainant haditakeu a post dated cheque dated 16.3.1993 along with a
jifsklote for security. On 16.3.2003, the accused had to pay the
.installme11t but, he failed to make payment to the complainant, as per
«-.._the’contention of the complainant.
Ev
4
The trial court has also noted, according to the accused, he has
paid the entire amount within the stipulated period. Thereafter, accused
demanded for return of the cheque and also the on demand ‘2 V
note, as the transaction was concluded. Further, noting theevidence at’
DW 1 is not contraverted in the cross exarnirjationia11di’the-I original. _date
written by the accused was materially altered by forging iliitials,’=the». ii
trial court has opined that the cheqtteiiiicarrte to be~.pres–e:nted_ by the
complainant to the bank and for fault of th’e:,a.c,c’u–sed, a false case has
been filed against him. The trial cyQurt.ha.s__also ‘tb;.ti–the alteration of
the date on the-cheque is consent of the accused and it is a
time barred debt therejls no legally enforceable debt. Further, the
trialeourtvs-bias i.al.so”to.pined that the complainant has not revealed the date
of tir21nsa.ction:::’and’v tlae accused has established that the cheque is not
kiisiisuetl towardsa legally enforceable debt. The trial court has also taken
-. .j/Lintoi”consideration the report submitted by the Hand Writing Expert at
Ex…l34githat.i=the cheque is materially altered and also the ratio laid down
‘tna.r_ie;ltna lanardhana Bhat’s case ~ 2008 AIR scw 738, held that the
it llcontplainant has not clearly established the fact of existence of a legally
enforceable debt and that the accused has established his case by cogent
Y
5
and material evidence on record to disprove the presumption of a legialil’y_
enforceable debt.
It appears, on the cheque issued earl.iei=._the,-da.t.e entered the.reon’e:.,;. i
has been altered so as to suit the case of .the..__complai_nant antd”he;has filed l
the compiaint against the accused. ln viewviofyythe niateriai alteration
made as regards the date, it appears,’the’._trai)saction not taken place
as indicated by the comp1ainantV..~~’Rather; _he_ has tr”ie,.c’}’i.to encash the
cheque by altering releyantillpoint of time when the
cheque was yalici cheque and it was issued
towards security. is to misunderstandirig between the
has beelnir”r’1i’sused by the complainant by entering the
date by ‘wa;,E ‘of:rnaterial._ alteration. In view of the material alteration, the
ir.,f*cheque has been diisjhonored and it is not the fault of the accused and
‘”d§riather’,» it is due to the fault of the complainant the cheque was
,_ ‘dis’h_ono’red and as such, it does not attract the offence punishable under
the Negotiable Instruments Act. Rightly, the trial court has
it ‘gdismlissed the complaint which does not call for interference.
W
Appeal is ciisrnissed.
Sdljfi