IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT-2,
BANGALORE Og.%
DATED THIS THE 13"" DAY OF DECEw1EfiR"2£3iOO O.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE HIJIQIUV'AI}'I-,G.RA§\/£ES:H--i _
CRIMINAL APPE}Aj;NO.1755 O15 20m}
BETWEEN: ' é %
Sri.Nanjdppa, ._
S/ONiI'1g£lpp&,
Hindu, Aged abO1.1_t'«¢7 y;:a1-35
Residing at
4"] Main, N=ii.1ge_.f£'d1jii
Ba11ga1O_r¢--56O05G;:__ V " ..APPELLANT
(By Advs.)
AND:
A_ 1, v_»I§1;'s,_Bee Kéy"W.O.Qd.vPrOducts,
A £129t11ei1<;;Ahi C()1'1Ct3l'I1hL1ViI]*7itS
' V. "flffivatgfat'POz"3..che1'y Road,
iOde,.xVP:iyy--anu1'.
' A Ke1~ala Si"':1tr;é'.
"hi-"J ,
e - ité Pu:-£1101"
Sn:B.M()l1a111n1ed Har1eef.
O _ S4iji.B.E\/iohammed H:.-111661",
O 'SH/O B..Buv:1 Hzijé,
F Musiim, Aged about 42 years,
R/a Flat No.74,
3"" Floor, Falnir M2-mot.
\§:./
Id
Kzlpimgiiddzi.
Mz111ga1l():'eu575()('}l. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.P.S.Clianz>.l. Adv.)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Secti_Q’ii”3.’i8(}l’i};.oft_
Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment dz.I.l–O.2(}O7Viip2iis:;eid
by the xvi Addl. C.l\/I.M., Bangalore in C.c.–Nt3;;22′?99«/2035»
and convict the accused/respondente’fo’1′”the’_ offeiiacfe.-V}?jU/SQIB8
ofN.}.Aet. ‘- ~
This Criminal Appeal coining on ‘€01: h.earihg the._>
Court delivered the following: i _
This appeal is by £:'[‘§§iill_enging the order
of acquittal p;’:lss:edpi”by Bangalore, in
C.C.NC).22j’i99/2095itiiiilediéiii1t.i.i:0.2li)0i§€.
~A<;eo:din'g:,;Vito'-the cohiplziiinant, during June 2003
accused"-_h2i1d bot_'i.Fo\%ve.d*.2-;°?;;;i1.1 (ill? Rs.l._65,000/- and towards
repayl_"neiit,ii"li:ld' iss-:,1ed-._iéfeheque dated 3.l.2005 drawn on
'i"~v_.Ned.ui1g%adi '"-Billlk, iP:§yy21:1ui' Branch, Payyanui', which on
~-._l3lTt';.S€ilI[Zl:l"l'Qll; 'cane to be dishonoured for iiisufficient funds.
Au:-oi'dingly,}'i1l'tei" issuance of legal notice, for non~p2-tyment,
. )3".
3
the complaint came to be “filed. The trial Court, after enquiry,
has dismissed the complaint. Irlence. this appeal.
3. Heard.
4. The trial Court, accepting the “=-M_ersi()n.'(_–>f “the: ac_Cese’d~.VV
that the complainant had no ie.aip’acity to._lend’.=sticl1 a huge
amount and that the accused jhad’ “et,)rro”wed the ainount from.
M/s. Santhosh Auto Fil’1EiVUF_-3V:f3i Azeez and out
of three security, he
having has given one of the
cheques to which has been misused by the
etyrnplainztnt and on hand, noting the contention taken
by coittplainant tha’-.’ he had borrowed some anrtount from
lone,Ra,nria11na”a_nd one Bettaswamy and has withdrawn some
a;.no’ur1t t”rt’>–éh_ his bank account and also out of the amount saved
by him, he has lent the amount. to the accused, has observed that
“(:oinplainant has not examined either Ramanna or
V liiettaswamy from whom he is alleged to have borrowed the
Al”
4
amount. and ziccordiiigly, tlirowing the burden on the
coinpiaiiiunt that the case against the accused has not been
established. has formed an opinion that, at the in-sitzi-ni§;e”v-:31″
Abdul Azeez 21 iiilse case has been filed against the aer:V1iserii’1ay 7
the complainant.
5. In the case of Rangap}i:id~:::\.7fls. AIR
2010 SC 1898, the per éection 139
of the Negotiable vI11struVme_ri:ts is in
favour of the issued is towards 21
legally;veiifoiicweiihie accused to disprove the
same 15 offeifii1;g’fi1*oof.oi” ej(‘plai1ati()i1.
Hence, éi’;’ipe;_i.! is aliowed and the impugned order is set
V M§iIte’i= remitted to the trial Court for disposal of the
same izi_;iCe–(__:1’dz1nce with law, after affording opportunity to
both tI”iej__§ai’ties, if need be. Oi”fice to send back the zecords.
‘.J’i
Parties are directed to appear before the triai Cop:-:*t_c”a11
17.1.2011.
Bkp