I
IN THE HXGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
{DATED 'FHiS THE 22533 DAY OF SEVFEMBEER
BEFORE
"THE H£)N'BLE MR.JUS'I'¥CE ARAL1 N1ég'€:{A1eAg1"F'
CRIMINAL APPEAL " V
BETW SEN:
The Ka3'r1ataka Small Scale '
Irzdtlstrics Marketing Corporatién Lh_nit,ed"-- ¢_
(Government of KaI'Ii€i{€ll<fi. u3:u:1e3:."..faki:2g) ' '
Industrial Estate, Rajajgifiagmf
Bangaiore - 560 044. " 'A " .V
{Rfipresenteii by its Mangagiag Dirsitctrjy) ._ .. A?PELLAN'§'
(By sfi.R.Rag;e5}g, & sfi. a,x?;'BaL~;§ Re;1_d;$; Advs.}
Aim; " " 'V ' V' '
Mr. Ai3an'd@ }4I.'£{."-»_Aiiishesf'13.' '
Propx"ie'cr)r," M)' S .Sfi1§ya€i::i: '¥nri'11stries
RTK C0.=;d}:1_iex,VvLéi}a Lajapégthroy Road
Durgiguéi, 'Shimotga. .. RESPONDENT
" _ (B;§§."Sr:;;-;%.1€.ARad¥'jé1' 'i{3i$h:1a, Adv.)
.. T' Appeal is filed under Secfion 3'?8(4) Cr.P.C
prayizlg' --f t<3 set aside the, judgment ét.i25.1.08 in
C;--f§.NQ.:~§449]O4 on the file of the 20 ACMM and XXII Addl.
SCJ Bangalore and F'urt:her convict the raespondeni for the
ofienbzzfy Pit}/S 138 and 142 of N.I.Act and direct the
'V "r<:spon€1e1:1t to pay Rs.23,22,{}6S/»~ {Rupees Twenty' Three
Egakils Twang? Two Hundred and Sixty Five only) to the
" uappéilant with intsresta
This Appeal ceming on for hearing this day, the Ciourt
deliverfid the foliowingz
_____g"~v*-.,.~s...
2
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is by the complajneugt in
C.C.N0.ii-449/2084 on the file of the iearned XX
Bangaiore {hereinafter eeferreti as “Trial Court’
2. The appellant-c0m;31aina;,i€AA’Vha5s ¢_ Leis b
appeal the iegality and conectness t»heA.jue1§7C;:_e:1t ezn»£3r(}re¥.’erVV
dated 251.2008 passed in’ j.gc}’:;1:ite§:i’g the
accused therein (respen_;ient&V.E1e1;ei31)”-pf tfie”‘9fi”e:ice under
Section 138 ofthe Nsgofiame Age;
the jLt1:ig;e1eni. orgier of aequittai and also emtire
n1ate:’ia1A’f:;_1i;a§1 reconzis obtained from the Trial
Court .. L ‘ V . ‘ .
” ‘Stated in’ Bfief the case of the compiaiuant is as
_u’:1g:1,e’:: ” VV
Compiainant has been a Kanflataka
.V 4′ Government Lineiertakiing incorpomted
Imcier the Companies Act, 1956. The
accused has beer; the
Proprietor] Authorised Signatery 0:”
M] s.Sahyadri Industries anci
Mfgfishok Woofl Izxdustries, both of
…..r–/’
(D)
” 2 \~
11)
which with the
compiainanf. as small scaifi: units.
arc registsnad
T118 accused has been S1};{3}f)hi’j,?ii.’1’gVV:’
househoki articles to the crom§>ie§in_.a::§t’ . V’
Cflorporatiem
suppiy goeds to 3:16 :§:ii1})1i”;~}{é:é:,S
cemplajnant 7- Corfioifiijon
of ths goodé._§’§1zppiiei3′ &;*£§C”ti¥’&fiC:i
Wfiffi d£:fc:<:tivé""«.,Véa;r:gi tI3c;:¢f<§rC, § the
empiogifiag {if 1':-.'i§: Htgmplaiixéiizt –
Carporéxficfi same to the
acc1:scjr:i'.: "The ';1gi:::1sec_1}.%és. due to the
dean lziin:5:n"t' -~ C43 " 'iztzirévn. in a sum of
9 L _
V .gf;4.':23,2'2i;j05%3i15, Towmfis discharge of
s.'sx.j€i*«.vV__c1e!:}':, thlfi accused issued
N<:3.269928 dated :96:
VA ., Na)Ver;1E34:i’..”‘2GO3 for the said amount.
a chequc was pmsantad to the
” Bank.
..–“€:fldOI’S6n1fiI1t as “the account is closed”.
It came: hr: be bounced with
Thfireafier the complainant got issueci
statutory notice daicd 26.12.2003
through R.P.A.I}. and aim under
Certificate of Posting calling uptm the
accused to pay the amount under the
said cheque. The notices sent under
RPAD and under Csertzificam of Posting
bath mmrneé with pasta} Shara as
.._..§”‘*””*-“”x….
‘I’h,em, ac.cus.e7(i’ ” ‘1:’sve.d'”= tc,
4
“addressee left and closed”. Therefore,
the complainant filed his
Cemplaint. T ‘T
5’5. 011 app1’eciati0.:1 of the 013% evidenee_–*;$f ‘
efficial of the complainant —- Corporation, tiie” “L”i§§§;:ti r;Jei:rs _.af
Ex3.P1 to P32 and the oral evideziee of-mg;
the Trial Court, by its imp¥,1gne€i j.:_1dgneie1_2fand F
the accused of the offence under’VL4L$ee’é.9n {hevvfblegotiable
Instruments Act. There ffi::’e, .A has filed the
present appeal
“-1ea1_vf11ed”—-Co1inse1 for the appellant -~
complainant that the Trial Court committed
a serious enrei’ in Vacquittixig the accused on the ground that
the to establish the existence of legally
dérbt payable to him by the accused though
__ be drawn nnder Section 139 of N.I.Ac1:
V V _ agaiiist the aéeused to the effect that the cheque in question
:fWase_issi1eEi by the accused in faveur 0f the complainant
T. diecharge of existing legaiiy enforceable debt, and
‘ _therefore, the impugned judgment ané order desezves to be set
” aside and aCClISCC§ deserves to be convicted for the said offence.
fqm
.5
27. Per Contra, learned Counsei for the respcsnfient -~
acctusaci si:.rc:>ng1y ccantrsnds ihat the statutory noiiCc.”‘s»a;’d to
have been issucci by the Camplainant to the accg;§_£:~dvV’Vv:9a::3″i:=.:>t:
rttceived by the acctwsed, .inasmuch as, the notricefi said Vt<:fh:~aj€:€ V'
been sent throtlgh RPAD and also:-uficzicr. ' '
came to be returncci tn the with "
endorsement as “addrcssac IéI”E,_éiI;2_d c}osa{__:i”” and: fi~;éi*¥’:’foi”e, the’
coxnplainant had no cause of acfién, 1:0. file ?hevSaid’§comp1ah1t
against the accused. H€”4’fi”lfiI”Ehfi-*3 Ex.P2, the letter
issued by {ha acezised 1;)” goes to Show
that fhfi ac¢u.s§ed to the campiainant
and 011%’-, ‘<H)'3VtT"V méfiified by the compiajnant for
filing tlxépfesént accused as deposed by DWI
in his ;f”?i’.VI.Act, it stood mbutted by the accused
of the accused by the Trial Court does not
(:51! {of aIiy’.V’§:;;3;V€rferenc€ in this appeal.
8, T’-he Compiainant has averred. in $2116 compiaim; that
” ‘$i=”,a;:f.1’1 1:;a1*3* notice was sanii throtlgh RPAD and also under
‘ cértificate of posting, but €116 pasta} covers came to be remmaci
(fin 11.2094 with pcostal enéorsement as “aédressee left and
closed”. This being 30, it is crystal clear that said nomlce was
.;….S”3″‘-~/”–
6
net served upon the accused and therefore, the compiainant
éid not have cause of action to file his compiaint agéinsi the
aecuged.
9. The accused has stated in his evideriee,
clear terms that he had given mite >Aéig1:egi xéindb T. n
3130 some signed blank pape1:sf_ the ‘
Corproration and {me 01″ the eaf€ 1″~~che<}¥ies czaghej ¥fit=:;V'3de"'1:i:1is11se:*:1.:a;7éa”s costs.
Sd/-
Iudqe