{"id":209909,"date":"2010-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-07-04T12:09:14","modified_gmt":"2017-07-04T06:39:14","slug":"mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr Babu Shetty S\/O Late Dogra … vs Mrs Philomena Bhandary on 21 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Mr Babu Shetty S\/O Late Dogra … vs Mrs Philomena Bhandary on 21 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 215' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HONBLE MRSJUSTICE B.V.NAGARAT}iVNAL\"O._V_\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL No.108'?\/2006x.....__ 4' .  ' L.  ~\n\nBETWEEN:\nMR. BABU SI-1E'I'\"I'Y, \nAGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,\n\nS\/O LATE DOGRA SHETFY,\n\nR\/AT BAWA HOUSE, ' -\nNADSAL VILLAGE,\n\nPADUBIDRI POST,\n\nUDUPI TALUK.\n\n. . APPELLANT\n\n(BY SR1. P:19.Hz3O15I+:\u00ab,.  FOR\nSR1 R.B.DESHPANDE}, COIJNSEL)\n\nAN1;g_:' \" _\n\n \"  . MRS; E!H1LOMENA\"B'\u00a5LANDARY\n, . AGI_3D_ABO.UT.47 YEARS,\n  12.'\/A1? cH1\"rHRA*;{UTEER,\n\nKATiPAL1;A__c\u00a3\u00a7Oss ROAD.\nIDDYA X\/'ELLg_1.GE,\nMANGALORE TALUK. ...RESPONDEN'I'\n\n (BY s'R;1b.Ro1--11T URS, ADVOCATE FOR\n\nV'  SRMTHARANATH POOJARY, ADVOCATE)\n\nW\n\n\n\n**=i<**\n\nTHIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U\/S.378-{4} OF'\nCR.P.C. PRAYING To SET ASIDE THE JUDGMEI\u00a7IT_j"DAfIfED\n17.5.2006 PASSED BY THE 11 ADDL._;""'S\u00ab.!.l'...___:\n\nMANGALDEE IN CRL.A.NO.367\/2004 ACQLlI'l'lN.C{ *rI\u00a7E"\nRESPONDENT -\u00ab ACCUSED FOR  'OF':'FEl;\\J'C$'4 U'\/S3. I382'; "\n\nOF IPC.\n\nTHIS APPEAL COMING QN I$DR"HEAEI:{\\'Is,':TIIIS; DAY},\n\nCOURT DELIVERED THE PoLL(jV*.rING\u00a7--  _  \n4...W........II 19  '\n\nThis appeal is \u00a31153  of Cr.P.C. by\nthe C0mp1ain.a.rIt -.i._n  the file of the\nV JMFC. 1I~;aI-Iig2;I\u00a3:rei--,_ \u00a2n'e_;:1_\u00e9ngIn"g55tne__order dated 17\/5\/2006\npasseCi..Ain*.C1'i.1tri'i:'i$il:LPxpD'e;Il""No.f367\/2004 by the 11 Add}. Dist.\nand Sessiohs  4\u00a7\\\/Iangalore, by which the order of\n\nthe._\u00a7trial. Court set aside and the Complaint filed by the\n\n Cozhplgiiriant\/appellant herein was dismissed.\n\nlh   Sake of Convenience. the parties shall be\n\nrefei'reCl.to. terms of their status before the trial Court.\n\n\n\nX .\n\n\n\n3\n3. The appellant who is the complainant filed a\ncomplaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments\nAct (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of\n\nbrevity], I'\/W Section 200 of Cr.P.C contending"  the\n\naccused owned seven cents of land in Sy.No.9--_1:1i*--{dport'io;il of\n\nEdya Village along with her family  \n\noriginally granted on OCCL1paI1Cy::.'i'ig]il_:t"   if\n\nfather of the accused, by the Land Ti'il:iunal antion his'.dea \n\nthe same had devolved on the'"afc'c~_ised and heirs.'\nThe accused along with  o_ther'eo;-slia__rers agreed to sell the\n\nland to the complainant-1'and':alsc~,_ireiceived a part of the\n\nconsicierationiivfamount_:o\u00a3:Rs.35dif500\/~. Subsequently, due to\n\ndifference of opinio:_i1.,_'r1o__"sale deed was executed in favour of\n\nthe gcomplaina'Iit;V'Vtliat_ there was a compromise between the\n\n complainant and"th"edaccused and it was amicably decided\n\n    should pay an amount of Rs.80,000\/-- to the\n\njdtowards full and final settlement. of amount\n\n payable'3_ to the complainant in respect of the aforesaid\n\n'~ iiagieement sale: that towards the payment of the said amount\n\n'of Rs.80.000\/-- the accused had issued a cheque bearing\n\n%%\/a\n\n\n\n4\nNo.937532 dated 15\/2\/2003 drawn on Vijaya Bank,\nSurathkal Branch, Mangalore, in favour of the complainant;\nthat on presentation of the said cheque it was returned as\n\ndishonoured for "insufficient funds". Thereafte.r;c._c the\n\ncomplainant issued registered notice dated 4\/7\n\nhis lawyer, calling upon the accused to pay _t.he \n\nthe stipulated period as required,' underfj. \n\nnotice was served on the accused on"8.\/7\/2:GfO3:.f inspite of\n\nservice of notice, the accused\u00b0rfailed  the payment\nwithin the stipulated pe\ufb02od   .thedishonot1red cheque\n\nand hence, he got issued af.V"falfse_.~.,rep1yhand therefore on\n\n16\/  wasvufiled against the accused for\nan offence 'said tocommitted under Section 138 of\nthe Act.\n\n .13\/,*;,  A.Afterf"receipt of the complaint, the sworn\n\n 'statement~v complainant was recorded and on taking\n\nco_gnizan.celc_of the complaint, summons was ordered to the\n\n accusediarid thereafter. substance of the complaint was put to\n\n thefaccused and she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be\n\n:2\n\n\n\n\n5\ntried. In support of his case, the complainant examined\nhimself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 and produced\ntwelve documents, which were marked as Exs.P,1 to \u00a33.12\n\nwhile the accused examined herself as D.W.1_4vV.,a1'i,d~.._her\n\nhusband was examined as D.W.2 and she  \n\ndocuments which were marked _ \n\nstatement of the accused under ,iv3lll'a,'3g.:"i'i~,f\u00a3_Lis\n\nrecorded. l l l V\n5. The trial Court    points for its\n\nconsideration:-  it it t   \n\n.1';i'Whe1j'her'7i;'r1e lcornnlainantvl proves that, accused has\ncommitted 4' an :\u00a2r\u00a7\u00a2n\u00a2e,\ufb01u.;\u00a7'i's1jab1e under Section 138 of N .I.\nAct beyondarleasonablie tldolubt?\n\nV \u00bb '   "-Nhatl'tord.er_'_.?M \u00a2 .\n\nV    _  a1:sW--ered the Point No.1 in the af\ufb01rmative.\n\n6,. .\\li:i-.,.r"'g:f:ter hearing the arguments, the trial Court\n\n allowedthe complainant and convicted the accused for an\n\n offence punishable under Section 138 of\ufb01the Act and\n\n3\/\n\n\n\n6\n\nsentenced her to pay fine of Rs.90,000\/~ and in default of\npayment of line, the accused to undergo simple imprisonment\nfor a period of three months and furiher invoking\ufb01ection\n357(i){b) of Cr.P.C., a sum of Rs.88.000\/\u00bb was ordered.:f_Vi.Qvgbe\n\npaid as compensation to the complainant.\n\n7. Being aggrieved by the said 'order of  f j\n\naccused preferred Criminal Appenalg  \n\ncomplainant preferred Clrirninal "  Rey3'sion_V"wPetition'\n\nNo.299\/2004 seeking enhancernent o~f_sente'11ce before the H\n\nAddl. Dist. and SeSsions'Judg?_, \n\n  "-appellai:'eVVVVC'ourt raised the following\npoints"-ford'   "  h\n\n_ "The\u00b0'~poin.ts'V--. th--atV'*arise for my consideration are as\n\n    ..... \n<\/pre>\n
V    _  “the complainant has proved that there was an<\/p>\n
agreveiment entered into by the accused in favour of the
\n~ complainant to sell the property measuring 7 cents in<\/p>\n
‘,\/<\/p>\n
7<\/span>
\nSy.No.9\/14 {Portion} of Idya Village for a consideration<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.35.5OG\/–‘?\n<\/p>\n
Vlmether the complainant further proveS–___ that<\/p>\n
subsequently there was a compromise and as_j)’er”teit1jns<\/p>\n
of compromise, the accused was l-iableflto <\/p>\n
Rs.80.000\/W to the complainant.4therehy’;”rthe.l”accr,1sedu’ it<\/p>\n
was liable to pay Rs.80,000\/into 7ft<\/p>\n
Whether the accused cor2:1:r11i\u00bbttedV.offeiicejfurider”SectioriV<\/p>\n
138 of N.I.ACt’? V <\/p>\n
Whether the  adequate and<\/p>\n
Whether the and order of sentence under
\nV . appeal a_rer1ia~b1e;toA he quashed?\n<\/p>\n
 Q}:der?”.. ….. ..\n<\/p>\n
Arid.V.arisvr?e\u00bbr_ed!Point Nos. 1 to 3 in the negative and Point No.4<\/p>\n
did.”‘not–.VAarivs’e for consideration and Point Nos.5 and 6 were<\/p>\n
M ii    liable to”be dismissed. u,;\/<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
9. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of
\nthe complaint and allowing the appeal filed by the accused,<\/p>\n
the complainant has preferred this appeal.<\/p>\n
10. I have heard the learned counsel appjea1″i.ing’..for<\/p>\n
the appellant. and the learned counsel for the   ‘<\/p>\n
perused the material on record.   –\n<\/p>\n
11. It is contended   . \u00ab.\n<\/p>\n
appellant\/ complainant that ‘judgnient’ of: ‘the’-trial ‘Court’<\/p>\n
convicting the accused.’ for ,an–. ioFfer1,ce punishalole under<\/p>\n
Section 138 of the Actlavvas’  and should not<\/p>\n
have been “‘the*’l’1rst appellate Court. He
\nsubmits tiiatithefe\u00bb..vverel”s_everal contradictions in the defence
\nraised _acc.us’ed”  also in the evidence let in and<\/p>\n
hence.’ the first uappvpellvate Court was not right in dismissing<\/p>\n
.the_ con1plaiIit;_ that under Section 138 of the Act, a<\/p>\n
H presurnl\ufb01fionislvraised in favour of the complainant and the<\/p>\n
burdenflieson the accused to rebut the said presumption by<\/p>\n
  effective’ evidence. In the instant case, on account of material<\/p>\n
contradictions in the evidence let in by the accused, there was<\/p>\n
2?\n<\/p>\n
3-,x.\n<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
no rebuttal of the presumption raised in favour __of the
\ncomplainant and ignoring the said fact, the first.”a..ppe’1~1ate<\/p>\n
Court has erroneously dismissed the complaint,-*  at<\/p>\n
12. Drawing my attentional” to.   it<\/p>\n
produced by the accused, counsel  appe’ll.rant.V <\/p>\n
that while the complaint ntadie”‘~._before._the_ with’?<\/p>\n
regard to the loss of the.entire~’chepguewboolt lbeforeviithe police,
\nit was with regard to  in question that
\nthe accused h”a.<.\u00a7::ti\u20ac_)'t been   into' how the number
\nof the chegue"  case was known to
\nthe  before the police if
\n had been lost. He has also
\nstated that_l'4tl1eliriitial lies on the complaint and it was<\/p>\n
for.._\u00a7theeA.accusedll to prove that there was no transaction<\/p>\n
 'parties ir respect of which she had to issue the<\/p>\n
 .cbl'3_<li1E' fa\ufb01a :iu'n""the absence of any such evidence, the first<\/p>\n
appellate Court could not have held in favour of the accused.<\/p>\n
  _He therefore, submitted that the order of the first appellate<\/p>\n
at '-._C"oL1rt be set aside and the order of the trial Court be upheld.<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
\nsubmitted that the presumption in favour of the complainant<\/p>\n
could have been raised under Section 138 of the..i’3.:ct”-i.t”th’ere<\/p>\n
was a legally recoverable debt in respect of  the<\/p>\n
in question had been issued by th-e”acc.use’d. _VvIni’thellVabSen.cel’<\/p>\n
of there being any proof of the transactilon <\/p>\n
sale of land being proved\u00bb  the.” coniplainant” antytl<\/p>\n
corroborative evidence, the first— ap–pe’llate Convrt was justified
\nin coming to a conclusionlthatthe} in question was not
\nissued in respect’ of anylllegal liabii.loity.Van:dl’\u00bb’that the complaint<\/p>\n
was rightly   has __ais’o  my attention to the
\neviderlcellloi’i’th.e  tolllpoint out that if at all there
\nwas any traIl1sact’i.Vr’):_’n_:witl1…regard to sale of the land it was<\/p>\n
between bproth\u00e9ver of the accused and the complainant then,<\/p>\n
 V’  _ ‘cir;c.un1.stance’un–der which the accused had issued cheque<\/p>\n
   not been explained and as a result, initial<\/p>\n
‘burden   the complainant has not been discharged and<\/p>\n
 therefolrav the first appellate Court was justified<\/p>\n
~ Atinholding that in the absence of there being proof with regard<\/p>\n
 it the transaction between the parties sand the<\/p>\n
1 <\/span><\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
circumstances under which the cheque was issued by the
\naccused, the first appellate Court was justified in disr\ufb02ipssing<\/p>\n
the complainant. He has also submitted that eVeVn_prioru:tolt\u00abhe<\/p>\n
date of the cheque namely 15\/2\/200:3,  .:\u00a2.c\u00a7li\u00a7::;~;i:1t”‘<\/p>\n
regarding the loss of cheque in questilo’1’1\u00abhas.ibeenl ‘inadeby the l<\/p>\n
accused before the police as Well as ii-ttilmation was <\/p>\n
the bank and it is on accoulnt–._of._the loss ‘ofA”i;tijat the<\/p>\n
st0p–payment instructions was  on if ‘l’.’3-\/2,\/’E2003. The
\ncheque is dated 20\/2\/ on 25\/2\/2003
\nwhich, according .__to    if in respect of an<\/p>\n
agreement.whvic]:iIl:i.s’;’.szud__to._haveiltakenmplace in 1995, which<\/p>\n
agreernent ” isafriot if by  “independent corroborative
\nevidence and hen’ee;. the\ufb01defence put forth by the accused has<\/p>\n
beenrightly.accepted’-hy’~t’he first appellate Court which order<\/p>\n
 ‘~   call forVlanyiriterference in this appeal.<\/p>\n
   heard the learned counsel on both sides<\/p>\n
a11dllonV.peru_sal of the material on record, the only point that<\/p>\n
 arises for my consideration is as to whether the order of the<\/p>\n
V’ appellate Court calls for any interference in\/uthis appeal.<\/p>\n
5\/,<\/p>\n
_12<\/p>\n
15. From the material on record, it is not in dispute<\/p>\n
that Ex.P.1 which is the cheque bears the signature”-,oi’.._the<\/p>\n
accused, which is marked as Ex.P.1{a). It <\/p>\n
dispute that the said cheque was dishonoured   respect is p <\/p>\n
of which, Ex.P.2 -~ bank memo was i:ssi;:ed’agstati’11g’=that=ath\u00abe<\/p>\n
cheque was dishonoured on7ac_count._of <\/p>\n
stopped by drawer and thereulvljbepingu insufficiejncyfi of funds.
\nEx.P.3 is the legal   i<h_a.s'"been vissltied by the
\ncomplainant and a recA\u00a2iDs\u00a3_ Of acknowledged
\nand the reply   A perusal of
\nEx.D.3 m \/'–7'.':.,' lmakes it apparent that
\nit was\ufb02a'  with regard to the sale of
\nseven  of VpVlarid._\u00bbi11.V_j&:E3y..I\\lo.9–1-\u00a2\u00a3(Portion) of Idya Village,<\/p>\n
which according. to: the cornplainant was owned by the mother<\/p>\n
 0fv-':cthe:p_Aaccaupsed Vlaniirsister and brother of the accused and<\/p>\n
  'h:adr'deVolved on them on the death of their father as<\/p>\n
'legal  they being co~sharers had agreed to sell the<\/p>\n
 lands the complainant and in respect of which part<\/p>\n
A  xconsideration of Rs.35,5G0\/– had been received by the<\/p>\n
accused and that on account of difference between the co\u00bb
\nf '\u00a7<\/p>\n
*2,\u00bb<\/p>\n
I3<\/p>\n
sharers, the said agreement did not fructify into..___a sale<\/p>\n
transaction but there was a compromise entered into–.l:jetir:{een<\/p>\n
the parties and the complainant had agreed to' <\/p>\n
of Rs.80,000\/~ towards full and fina.l…settler_1ient" a_rnou_nt ' _ <\/p>\n
payable by the accused and in respectfoi  lch'e\u20ac},'l\\\\ie.:in<\/p>\n
question dated 15 \/ 2\/ 2003 was..issued_.  V<\/p>\n
16. In respmlse fto–  said’  notice, the
\nrespondent ~\u00bb- accused  by categorically
\ndenying that thg\u00a7.g,__WaS.;;i”riy  vttithllregard to the sale
\nof the aforesaid’   and that on account
\nof  place, the cheque in
\nquestion __ __the accused in favour of the
\ncomplainant.   put forth by the accused in the<\/p>\n
reply’no_t1ce :1s\u00ab–.tha’tVllonlv’I2\/ 2\/ 2003 at about 5.00 pm. she was<\/p>\n
 pro’ceecE1i:11gVVl’ *J\u00a7{1tl’1 helrlllhusband on scooter and she lost her<\/p>\n
 purse ieointained cash and a blank cheque No.937’532<\/p>\n
dfayyn on  Bank, Suratkal Branch, Mangalore and that<\/p>\n
 she  lodged a complaint on 13\/2\/2003 at 9 a.m. before<\/p>\n
“1A:h_els\u00abHo of the Suratkal Police Station and that she had also<\/p>\n
‘%<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
issued stop~payn1ent instructions to Vi3’aya Bank, Suratkal
\nBranch on 13\/ 2 \/ 2003 and that the said cheque leaf has been
\nmisused by the complainant by filing a false cornplaint<\/p>\n
against her. Therefore. from the reply notice itself. _ivt.b’ecornes<\/p>\n
apparent that the accused had denied <\/p>\n
between her and the complainant and also i1i’ti1e.:eVidencpe she” . <\/p>\n
has also categorically stated that s_he::’was  <\/p>\n
any portion of Sy.No.9–l4{Pnrti.o_n) o’f._Ed”yaV  <\/p>\n
that there was a transaction between thelparties  regard
\nto the sale of the said —lafnd  ‘i7.(j’C\u00bb.Li1t\u20acd in a compromise
\nand the accusedpissuing Vthe.vch_eq:11e”.inl qi.ies’tion for a sum of<\/p>\n
   foruvlthe complaint filed by the
\ncomp1a’ir.1ant.l of the matter. the initial burden<\/p>\n
wascast oh’ the Vc’omA’plai*nant to prove that there was a sale<\/p>\n
  trairilsaciiion Aenteredinto between the parties and for the said<\/p>\n
 that the accused had issued a cheque for<\/p>\n
}_ towards full and final settlement. Infact. at the<\/p>\n
 very first instance namely. in the reply notice, the accused<\/p>\n
 had-._denied that there was any transaction between the<\/p>\n
parties. Therefore, the initial burden was cast on the<\/p>\n
3;,\/,<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
complainant to lay the foundation for making out a case that
\nthe cheque in question was issued towards discharge of a
\nlegal liability by the accused and that the dishonour of the<\/p>\n
cheque resulted in an offence under Section 138 of <\/p>\n
17. On a perusal of the evidence of the  4_<\/p>\n
is seen that no documents with regard to.'”t1;\u00e9Lnsaction’._oi ‘ . <\/p>\n
sale or compromise has been produ.ce<;'w ihfact. 'it_is the"~say'–:of<\/p>\n
the complainant that after 'the'~..comp'1'omise,l'b..the._:'d–o.cu:ments.it<\/p>\n
were returned. Even  that  the coiriplainaht has not
\nproduced any independent.ev-idence"particularly, the evidence<\/p>\n
of the witnesses. to the..\u00abd.oc':1me;f;t_s'l of namely Bhaskar<\/p>\n
Bhandvary  ' could have spoken about the
\ntransaction. – Furthef, according to the accused, she had no<\/p>\n
I'I'g'1"1;lZ"iIl;'th\u20acV pro_lperty,v' which was the subject matter of the<\/p>\n
l' transaction 'Land the complainant in his evidence has<\/p>\n
  stated that he did not make any enquiry in the<\/p>\n
Re'v__enue'Eiepartment about Sy.No.9-l=~'i and to a suggestion<\/p>\n
 made. that the signature on the cheque and the other details<\/p>\n
 whi_e.h were filled up are in different writing, he pifhas merely<\/p>\n
r\/.\n<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
denied the same. On a perusal of Ex.P.1, it is seen that the<\/p>\n
cheque bears the date 15\/2\/2003. However, E3xs.i3_’.”i<\/p>\n
clearly indicate that on 12\/2\/2003, the cheqt1ie;l\u00ab.was”*io’st <\/p>\n
intimation was given to the bank regarding’ lossaof \u00a2’he’que– on i _ <\/p>\n
13\/2\/2003 and also a Police Cdf\ufb02piainjt <\/p>\n
however, the contention of tfig-..g2ounse.} ‘for triellappellarit <\/p>\n
these documents have been got:4_l:i}p:_forv.the.parplose\ufb01of the case
\nand that the accused tzhesledoouments in order
\nto justify the defence  cheque but that the
\nsame does  the  ::th’eVlco:’hplainant. However,
\nwhat is to   case is as to whether a
\n  _inlvtaVour of the complainant at
\nthe   “\u00abl’whether the complainant has<\/p>\n
discharged llthcevlinitialiburtlen cast on him.<\/p>\n
  As already stated, no documents with regard to<\/p>\n
A  the  been produced by the complainant and no<\/p>\n
ind~epenvdent\u00ab’ oral evidence with regard to the agreement<\/p>\n
 enteredirlto between the parties has been produced. Infact,<\/p>\n
 the accused denied that she had nothing to do with the<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
xi’<\/p>\n
“Vintended to be purchased by him i.e., Sy.No.9–}.4~<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
land in question, the revenue records which are public<\/p>\n
records could have been produced before the Court..Vso_ras to<\/p>\n
make out a case that the said land indeed  _<\/p>\n
accused and others and that there .was_–a–~triansa.ctior1 in. <\/p>\n
respect of the said land. More over\ufb01novyzhere ‘ian.’the-.evidenGf?cC.f<\/p>\n
the complainant the sale considerationllfor thewland agri:-eds <\/p>\n
be sold to the complainant  state-C1.h”The\ufb02lexridence of<\/p>\n
the complainant is   given by
\nhim to the brother of   amount. If that
\nbe so. under;”Wi:at.” had issued a
\ncheque for.’  out in the evidence of
\nthe   to  that in the legal notice
\nor in ‘:iVJf_\u00bbth.v_:e;”cioinplainant, details with regard to<\/p>\n
the agreement’ such as the date on which the sale agreement<\/p>\n
 V.  _ tvzi:$}”:en’terc.d intollandthe compromise talks held and in whose
\n  vpreserlm\u00e9zthtttlcompromise was concluded and as to whether
\n‘the’ifuvlpl\ufb01vand’ulfinal settlement arrived at for a sum of
\n  has not been stated. Infact. i.n the cross-<\/p>\n
 Aipeicamination, the complainant has stated that the land<\/p>\n
stood in the<\/p>\n
3;.\n<\/p>\n
3 _r-. M\u00bb<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
name of the mother of the accused, then there was no<\/p>\n
explanation given by the complainant as to why the.eacct;sed<\/p>\n
had issued the cheque and if according to the<\/p>\n
the documents with regard to the transactions .. _\\\ufb01fere’–l.i:fet_u1’n’ed .l <\/p>\n
back, then to whom they were geiventy j;As_ <\/p>\n
though in the evidence twoe,persons’g\\\ufb01Ilere m_eau\u00a7ned <\/p>\n
witnesses to the agreement of salelrthey xi’rere”‘ndt examined by<\/p>\n
the complainant. in   complainant
\nhas stated that in the year  agreement and
\nsubsequently!   lapse of 8 years,
\ncheque   .isi’e.no.:eAexplanation with regard to
\nWhy    bytuthlelvjaccused if the land stood
\nin thehante of. lorother of the accused had any<\/p>\n
transaction” with ethe Aconzplllainant, it would have been natural<\/p>\n
 if issued——–the cheque. The complainant has also<\/p>\n
 .cateVgo’rical.v1y’stated that there was no other transaction<\/p>\n
‘between  accused and herself and that the sale transaction<\/p>\n
was said to be in the year 1995. But either in the legal notice<\/p>\n
\u00bb or ‘-in the evidence of the complainant, there is no reference to<\/p>\n
‘?\n<\/p>\n
‘E
\n.\/.,y~” [ .\n<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
the year in which the said transaction was said to have been
\nentered into.\n<\/p>\n
19. At this stage, it is also relevant to note that the<\/p>\n
accused has produced Exs.D.1 and 13.2 in order tojprid”J_e”‘the<\/p>\n
loss of cheque on 12\/ 2\/ 2003 and the intimation<\/p>\n
bank regarding loss of cheque andthecomplaintr._gi.yent4_’to if ~ <\/p>\n
police on 13 \/ 2 \/ 2003 in respect of Whi(:’hi theicomplainantlhas<\/p>\n
not let in any evidence as such.”*-The contention of ‘themcounsel V L’<\/p>\n
for the appellant that the accused:_ has consistently changed
\nher stand with regardvtoftfhe iss1;ian\u00e9:–e_lo.f:’the cheque in favour<\/p>\n
of the complainant by conc_o’cti11g La  that she had lost<\/p>\n
the cheque  su_b’se_q–uently. by stating that she had
\nlost thecheque  therefore. the said defence is<\/p>\n
concfocteqd for ‘ay_oiding’ the punishment under the Act cannot<\/p>\n
also befacdcepted because in the cross–examination of the<\/p>\n
I   categorically stated that it is only in respect<\/p>\n
of the c.heqt\u00a7..effin question that she had signed and she admits<\/p>\n
 her signature on the said cheque. Therefore, the point as to<\/p>\n
Vf\ufb02whether the entire cheque book was lost or the c\ufb01heque leaf in<\/p>\n
‘?\n<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
question was lost has no relevance si.nce it is the case of the
\naccused that the cheque in question was lost and in respect of<\/p>\n
which Exs.D.i and [).2 came to be filed.\n<\/p>\n
20. In the reply arguments, counseltheaappellant <\/p>\n
has stated that in the event of <\/p>\n
conclusion that the first appellatellflourtg  ‘iii,<\/p>\n
dismissing the complaint, the  may  to the<\/p>\n
trial Court and an opporltunityllhe’ given-to the vconiplainant to<\/p>\n
let in additional evidencelby pro’lduci_ng’–tAiielb’records pertaining<\/p>\n
to the .tiarid..\\:}\u00a7rhilch: was “aV_s1ibjec*ttmatter of agreement between
\nthe partiels\u00e9lis’  the said contention as only to be
\nnoticed  rejected “forI.’i’the simple reason that at the very<\/p>\n
firstiinstance,’th–a_tv_is’, in reply to the legal notice issued by the<\/p>\n
~ vco–rnplaiia.an.t,”*–the accused had taken a categorical stand that<\/p>\n
‘there \\\u00a7vas”_v\u00bb-notavgreenient entered into between the parties in<\/p>\n
reslpectviofthe land in question and later. she had stated that<\/p>\n
  “she had no right, title and interest in respect of the said land.<\/p>\n
 View of the admission made by the accused, the contention<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
that production of documents pertaining to the landhwould<\/p>\n
prove the case of the complainant has to be rejected,\u00bb l.V”l_l”‘l1_e7f_act<\/p>\n
remains that the initial burden was on the <\/p>\n
prove the transaction between heApVparties”‘o.utw.plo1f: which’ <\/p>\n
transaction, the accused had issued thettcliveque Ain’*qucstion;V to<\/p>\n
discharge a legal liability. I1′;tli_1__e absence of  an3:f<\/p>\n
proof regarding the transactionvlvin.lduestion.–  plea made by
\nthe counsel for the  thatlproduction of
\na revenue records    complainant is
\nrejected.     that the accused
\nhad to  in favour of the
\ncornplavilnant’   as no presumption can
\nbe raisledulinlfavour:~ot”tlhe\u00bb\u00bb:complainant in the instant case.<\/p>\n
The Vfurtherl oVbseV1’fvat’ions”ll of the trial Court that what is<\/p>\n
  _in\u00bb._a chec[u’e**”iVn the signature of the drawer and that<\/p>\n
 _ in the ‘instantcase, there was no necessity for signing a blank<\/p>\n
cilelque andkceeping it with the accused are not correct. The<\/p>\n
 trial ~. ‘Court has also stated that it was not<\/p>\n
 necessary for the complainant to produce any record with<\/p>\n
regard to the Sy. No. 9- 14 and that the<\/p>\n
*3:\/\u00bb<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence of the complainant — P.W.i had only minor
\ndiscrepancies and since the complainant had the address of
\nthe accused, they were not strangers are also incorrect<\/p>\n
reasoning to come to a conclusion that the defence<\/p>\n
the accused is improbable. Enfact, the Apex <\/p>\n
M\/s.Kumar Exports -Vs- Shanna _Car1:iets”  <\/p>\n
(AIR 2009 so 1518) has stated that t;\u00a3ie~{iefence:to <\/p>\n
in such cases has to be basedlV_on_the ‘probabilitiesgand\ufb02not like, i’<\/p>\n
that of a prosecution trying to prove axcase beyondvfreasonabie
\ndoubt, in the contextvof ‘presurLtptionrv~r:ajsed under Section<\/p>\n
139 of the Actvand  by the Apex<\/p>\n
Court to  _a??.sta.tutory presumption, an accused is
\nnot expected ‘to ~proye__:”iii’s defence beyond reasonable<\/p>\n
doubtv as isilexpectedtbyv the complainant in criminal trial.<\/p>\n
 Qnfan lover’  appreciation of the evidence on record, I am of<\/p>\n
    that the first appellate Court was justified<\/p>\n
 settingadside the order of the trial Court. <\/p>\n
inthe complaint under Section 374 of the Act by<\/p>\n
.\/”Z<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
21. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any _me:rit.<\/p>\n
fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\n*mvs<\/p>\n
S65Ajijk:1   <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Mr Babu Shetty S\/O Late Dogra … vs Mrs Philomena Bhandary on 21 October, 2010 Author: B.V.Nagarathna 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 215′ DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010 BEFORE THE HONBLE MRSJUSTICE B.V.NAGARAT}iVNAL”O._V_ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.108′?\/2006x…..__ 4′ . ‘ L. ~ BETWEEN: MR. BABU SI-1E’I'”I’Y, AGED […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-209909","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMr Babu Shetty S\/O Late Dogra ... vs Mrs Philomena Bhandary on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr Babu Shetty S\/O Late Dogra ... vs Mrs Philomena Bhandary on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-04T06:39:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr Babu Shetty S\\\/O Late Dogra … vs Mrs Philomena Bhandary on 21 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-04T06:39:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2988,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr Babu Shetty S\\\/O Late Dogra ... vs Mrs Philomena Bhandary on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-04T06:39:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr Babu Shetty S\\\/O Late Dogra … vs Mrs Philomena Bhandary on 21 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr Babu Shetty S\/O Late Dogra ... vs Mrs Philomena Bhandary on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr Babu Shetty S\/O Late Dogra ... vs Mrs Philomena Bhandary on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-04T06:39:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr Babu Shetty S\/O Late Dogra … vs Mrs Philomena Bhandary on 21 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-04T06:39:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010"},"wordCount":2988,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010","name":"Mr Babu Shetty S\/O Late Dogra ... vs Mrs Philomena Bhandary on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-04T06:39:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-babu-shetty-so-late-dogra-vs-mrs-philomena-bhandary-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr Babu Shetty S\/O Late Dogra … vs Mrs Philomena Bhandary on 21 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209909","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=209909"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209909\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=209909"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=209909"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=209909"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}