M/S.Kanoria Industries Ltd. vs M/S.Bharat Agencies on 31 May, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S.Kanoria Industries Ltd. vs M/S.Bharat Agencies on 31 May, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT 0:: i{Aﬁi~Lé2;?rAi{.4;" --.  .
CIRCUIT BENCHAI DHARWAD  A.

Dated this the 16*?' Daykzf "Nove11:be'r:.2:=O 1:') 
Before  _ u "  ii
THE HON'BLE MR.,JUsTIcE"'K.<,§c>V'I.NnARAJ'ULU
Criminal RJ??'.NG.2i;36 
Criminal R.P.No,2253} 2259, 2261/2009

Criminal    

BETWE1§§g;T' .:  _
M,/S.K¢ANvQR_L!': 1N:s:;:3*r:2:'_:3s"Lfr:>..
CEMENT '::>1\x':s:<:>N§ 'B253 G'zi\..LKQ'i}

BY ITS AT:-IQRESEIJV.R:::'PRE':3E;NTATg>gvE

OFF'ICER~«LE§G*j-XL; MR, A;-,RjNiDASHESHI,

AGED;§\é'1AJQR, R;.Q'BAG2xLKoT

 PETETEQNER

'§ft3.3::V§§_r':.V i?::1E%.._D:3fL';%VE~, ADV}

AND 

_  *Mf§§;BHz3:RA'T' AGENCIES

  'BY .§'?S""?RQP§'E,}'€"F€}R, MRFAYAZ AHMED}
 _  49 YEARS, QCC: CEMENT DEALER,

 .__ "PGL;1{:§ 5:'?§'}3:TEC¥N Ri:},s%§}} Z\Ei%LL{£R:,



NJ

DIST DA'xfANAC}ERE

{By Sr: 8 M KALWAD, zmv. ;

THIS CRLRP 13 FELED 1;/s.3i::j? r~.:f;a>,;? 4&3; '€.=3\P:C?"""Bf£'<.:
THE ADVGCATE3 FOR THE: PEZTITIONER PRAY'.§N{} '~T1s:,A*:>

THIS HC)N'BLE: COURT MAY ;3E;"--.1.>LEAs3E,L:.Te,_ <;'=A:,:.,_F.oR
RECORD ON THE FILE OF 'rHI§:=coUR*--:_ C»E'.'.=SE:SS£(}NS
JUDGE), BAGALKOT IN CRL.A.NQ__,8-Q/8.8 ANDON PERUSAL
OF THE SAME BE ASIDE"Ti~?E1'"-.5IUDGM'ENT AND
ORDER DATED 22.1.2OQ'i}.f' _ p   

CRL.R.P.NO.2258 2009   
BETWEEN  '

M/S.KANOR§'A if$?DU:s%*r_R1E:3._LTD§'--_  '
CEMENT' D:v:.§31m:g,V BAGALKLQ'?  _,
BY ITS AiU'T£:.QR1sEE>.; REPREZSENTATIVE
0FF1cE;é2~«LE:GAL;vM'R;VA'R.'N'H3A$HEsH1,
AGED:EvI:%JOR,RjVO:'}3'AGAE;]§§i3*T '

 PEZTITEONELR

 (By 53:; R DA*£*;:aE§:; ADXL;

M; S;"':3H;z::§&.j': §3;5:ENCIES
BY was PRQPEEIETOR; MR.FAY"AZ AHMED

3 AGED:é§6'YRS, {)CC:C't:TMEN'? DEALER;
u  EEQLICE S_T'AT1ON Roan, NALLUR
' ;:>:'s=§-;§AvAN<;*gRE

 RESEKLENDENT



La.)

{By Sri. S M BIALWAD. ADV.)   

THIS CRL.R.P LS FILED U;S.3;}?   1'
THE ADVOCATE? FOR THE: PETITIQNER' PRA'f_I:~<.<:; 
THIS HONBLEE COURT MAY  PLEZASEEEE TQ='f.jE:§LL FOR"

RECORD ON THE FILE: OF COUP.T'QF'-._S1Ei$'SiQ'NS
JUDGE; BAGALKOT IN cRL.A.NOL;8_1';Q8 AND 'Q24 PESRUSAL
OF THE sAME BE SET A£a1:>EJU§"GME:;\,?T AND
ORDER DATED 22_1.;2o<>9 .'~». " .. . 

<:RL.RP,N<:>.22;39 /2009  'V   

BETWEEN

M / s.KAN0R:-A' :':'(:4:>us':"R:§;_;3__ LTD  V '
CEMENT 131\;':Vsi<:ﬁ)1\3, BA{3AL%iOT"  2
BY ITS AU'£7H_C5E2_ISEZ'ﬁ)__ RE»P1eE:s1a::=.:%:fA.TvivE
0FF:cE:2wLEGAE;3_, MR,A.R.N.{DASHE3SHI
AGED:M'AJc>;<, R;"(§"BAGA'L;{'®'1' '

 _ _ . _ ...PE'TITIONER
{By Sr; V R 3A?A_R; :§'::3v.}

    %%%%% 

M gs'; BA$.A'vE;sé'm%ARA TRADERS

BY 1.fI'8 'p«RQ?'R;§:T.@R MR.S.H.CHANGALI
A(§ED»:49  Q<::<::cE:MENT DEALER.

2  A5? 3Ev{:z@_:2;.= §}IST:BAGALKO'E'

M,RESPONDENT

"«L.%;"_5;.r s":'~':j_~s S YADRAME, Ami; ' 'Ems «:::~:2:,,g.p IS FELEZQ £158.39? R/W 49; <:R€P.<: BE' 3353: ASVQCATE :::'{;2R mg PE'i'£"§'i®NER f3§€L%':'ENG ?Ei%.T THIS HDNBLE COURT MAY BE PLE§;'§S}3E} RECORD ON THE FILE) 0?' THE ;$QUR'7?_ OF.;'SE"SSIONS V. JLEDGEZ, SAGALKOT IN CRLA.N{}.75'~[O8:_'P;ND 'QN'A.?ERU:S3AB:1VT_' OF' THE SAME? BE SET ASIDE T}E__E"'JUD(}?vEAE2E'§T'~ V 0121333 DATED 31,L2009.

CRLR.P.226fi:'2009 "

BETWEEN M;"S.KANORIA INDUSTRIES :.;m:.~.'-~"

CEMENT DEVISEON;,BAGA-£:KQ'F ' _ _ BY' ITS AU'FHOR{S¥31D"REE?RESE}iNT.A'FI\5E _ 0FF:cER~LEGgL, M7R._A.R§'NIDASH.ESH[ AGED:MAJoE:<; R.f~O"BA.§3AL.K O'? ' PETITIQNER (By sri_v1R Dgﬁéfé, - ' AND .~ M ,2 S.iségsmzézsHv<i'Av:>z.z:__rRA:>ER3 BNTS :>RCPR:.E:ToR, MR's.H.c:HAN<3ALI, :AGEI}.49..Y'E=2<ARS,v _0CC:<::EMENT DEALER Afr 'PQST:._3L§V'QC>'R.§.~ DIST :~BAGAE';'§<:Q"}7 * ' ' RESPONDENT

- gas".-,,_:§: Y£:DRAML ADV. ;

A '(TEES CRL,R.P1S FELED U/8.39'? R/W 401 *CiR.P'.C BY f:*:~:E._A;';v0<:ATE FOR THE PEZTETEQNER PRAYENG THAT

--..i"HiS HONBLEZ COURT MAY BE PLEASEED Te CALL FQR ""--_R'E';_{iQRD <33: 'ma FILE 3;: mg COURT' <3?' SE3S'>E3iQ'§'€'S ",J::DGE, BA<:;«A;L,K<)T EN CRL.A.E\EG.?5;'$8 AND ON PERUSAL 3 GE' THE} SAME: BE SET ASIDE 'THE: JU:)Gb;ii;:«r.x;f':'. ;£'s;§$:%;5"'A«V. ORDER QATED 31.1.2099.

THESE CRmmNAL RBvK§QN_§ETnK0N3jQQ®um&;"u FQR ORDERS '%ﬁS Dﬂﬁ THE CQUR1 M333 THE'j FOLLOWING:

0RDER_ All these: revision %fi'&«-Vvicﬁjynpiiiainant in each of these '9. ':§';:'fis=fate complain:

under Section 'ﬁthese cases C0mp1aina13?:<_' ::"'TQ"iév:""HE;£CCu$€C1 having of the N.i.Act. For clarity if: one case are taken up for narraii5'L§g % /O9 amiss out of a preceeding :h<'euCa3m_p1ainan1: in CC No.26/2003.

"v 2{?gf5§§mm;mwhecawin<x:No26;gxBgas V _ as u :'3<:1€::€fi¥ "'i_'Zomp1Vainant is Public: Limited Campa:/1y, it is, jﬂenﬁgagsd in manufacturing anti 3839 if csment. Tbs " accused £3 a cieaier? in the said Eransactién has isszzsﬁ 3. 6 cheque bearing Ne. 004E708 dated gum ef Rs.%1,Q{3G/4. The cheque was ef H Naﬂuzz The cheque was p:*esefJ1»fed"«?§>:'--:« through Syndicate Bank, Baga1ketg'V:He.V_eheq.'g--e fe'$et~.1:;:*e1je'c%' "

with an endorsement sf Tungabhadra Grameeﬁﬁankf ' :4 " 5; . r1<>'1;Ai--cv:VéA ié V4 issued ealiing upcm the there being W3 T93P0Y1Sib1€§,"§$2Ci:§'§3ﬁe3._ seeking leave of the Cour: 'Section 138 Qf NI.

Act. the accused eviden<:e 'i§ trial Judge PW} is examjénged :9' P5 rearked; learned trial Judge had fﬁate aeeﬁeed has dishenourd the cheque an offence under Sectien 138 of V VV _ N,I;?4X<:: .a§fee{'ed the case. Aggrieved by the same the aceueeti has p§fiefer:e§ Cir} Appeai Ne:,8§/08 er: the file ef the Seeeiewns Lhzdge} Bagaiket. '{'he iearﬁed Sesséerz Judge ~:«., ?, 7 was 0? the View that 'urﬂess the eempiainant has discharged burden in regard is the cheque being for ex iegaﬂy reeeverabie debts, the questiezn 1 "

pmof on the accused do not aris.e';""Fheréjby_V§f1'se;'fere'<:i with the finding recorded by :he;¢ae»seed §:':'»:igu~.suc£:;;ée~,_"= while allowing the appeal, distnéssbed eoV::1p1.ai1:tVV«Vff'§Veé{ the complainant. That i's._how.Aethens§:s1:fip1ainéeh't'is' before the Court.

4. Healifd }ee;rr:e.d§fV 'asﬁeécate for the complainant 1'.:_;:;;_1so_' "1e__2f;_zrne§d advocate for the aeCuesedV;:__Le.arne<';'L.e;:iii?'0ee:fe'"f<::I* the Complainant submits that the me::1_da.:e Section 139 is not complied by __any o.f_f:3ies'~aeeused,In such a situation duty ef the east:

:';}1.eVeQ:fr1«p}a:if:.a:1t by Appeﬂste Judge is net proper. If it :sA«'t3¢:e the accused that eheque is issued 'wétE1o1:i:..aV1'.§:ie'et he eught to have entered ihe witness learned trial Judge granted sufficieni: '~.__ "e3p§§§Z"U.£I'1iﬁ6S £0 ieaé. defezzee evideaee and the 8 apportunities being no': utilised? the approach 0? jrhe trial Judge not proper.

5. Advacatr: for the a<:<:us€<:i Submitgrﬁ T i' The Qppertunity accused ta lead evidence;

ii. If opportunity lead evidence to N J iii. p,_w.1 has misuti1i5_¢§=' :\?'.r:' "

In responsrr kérrrplainant refer to .fiL=: of 1: Add}. JMFC, Bagalkot. 'Rﬁéfer 'ta shows that the officer is author;{sé<i, to ri1§;"'rhe' complaint} is authorised to ?_r<s:pI":%:sér::t rhe_<§e.;>.::2pany. So pray for ordarsr ;ex.;:AutIr;=err1?ir:i w0riif;rig in EX.P.7' ends with the: fsﬂowirtzg Words A =."V§igr:__ the rzecessarjg d$::urrre:=r:ts including "'-*.2,ia%{3iia:hr:arr:a3'Z ether periéorz E"€8.-ii stgréé Saris er} 9 behalf 0f the company and to represent the C0mp_an§r'««_<:én.Vv .211} other matters incidental thereto as csnsidered necessary and expedi_e,mi,_ Th_*eW¥.2éfo:?f:ii:i'g _'is sufficiently wide, wiﬂ autherése P.';?Jfi1fG'~'fe;5re's:::92:; evidence on behalf of the cOm_fi>"a,ny. SQ:h§TV0_ff'i:a:§é':*vVh'é13 rn:is~uti1ised the pesition j.1rg6:<:1 .i--s V::'€:j.€'C~tg3d. "

B:~ Opportunity The <):*c:1e:*?_'Vs}«I'g*if,é":tV :)f --:h€é_ ffiai' C:jLii"t--~~:*'€Vea1 that more:

than 3 dGze:*:.VV.da3_t;€%_s <:V{>*;rc:iVr if;fg._é;ppré%;ximate1y a peried of one year is_TAg1'an_:Vétl, 'Q'1;1"._f£h€_' ground of settlement, defence %::gi4§:';er1'<:c<%_,V"« 's;»:;; '"=--._ tE1}3 cafxtenﬁon sufficient opport:;::':i:y is.Vn'a§_Vgr'ani;3d is liable to be rejected. . _ V i'~Iz§;'i'n.ll:$; 1'$ ¢0Ve rabm1'§ debt _ Horﬁble Apex Gear: in M/s Kumar _.Expéi~'ts ' Shanna Carpets ( Crl. Appeal W"':V'"v4%%'L2?§-$512903), hezki the accused in ma: zméer Sectien two apéisns He sat: sither Show that the

- . {V:£j'r: 3id€rat§Qr1 and the ﬁsh': did 21:3: exist 02* {hat unéez 10 the particular circumstances of the ease, the 1"1o___r:w existence of eonsicieratien and debt is so prebabEe:'t-h:aﬁ'vv., a prudent: mar: eught: to Suppese that no cor;éfde,r:2: t'i'ehee. V' and debt existed. Accused is net ve>%:'peeted; te_..;_irex;e his defence beyond reasonable d.§3ubt eel'-e§<epeeiee1"by e::oI1'1:3Iainam: in eriminai case."vI%§'*..the the defence of the aceueed eeifiaej'§3'§"-»e.Sup};$f3,;*js" given. Further, the defence of was;

not working, are vague assertions. date by which supply Afi'e'f ¥'nade, what effort is made to ..::ﬁeque are not feund. Se defenses' rais'edV_ 1*ei%ne.ins "'unsubstantiated. So burden vunde1{..'SeC'tiom.A139; e"fL"'ii'1rv1e NJ. Act: is not discharged by €i:e a.'Ceuse€§'«§ " VV {be light :35 the above? the approach of the '§e.e.:':.1e.<§ §§st:*2ie*: Judge is against the mandate ,1' ruiing ef Ceurt in E{un1;-e' Experis Ceee, So the judgment: recorded by the learned Appeﬂate not sustainable. Submission by the 1ea_rr1ed~1. edzfeqiééfee. M for the accused are rejected. 82:) C:I"1:R;::?.N":}.2_:?.§Gf'_:3Qi'3§~', 2261/2039? 2258/2009 and .2259safe"a:':ax.:«ee'.fff 'eV After dictating the livvearnecl advocates are heard tlgé ~ _ Both the. time of six months, accused in <::rLR.p.N¢.L22eQQ:;é:Q,Q}ég_"e:éﬁ.:%eagzegzgéiéa, 2258/2009 and 2259/ gay the Cheque ameunt within six:Lirzenfhs".}éL:1ei"--«_ dE)tain es. receipt fmm the complatxaint. fcheir failure to de so, they are Iiabie to ﬁ€V.>'a:; '/"i$eE'R: z::ﬁeg;ue(c}£ee1ue bearing N0.0041699 dated R3-3 dated 20.03.2004, 0041700 dated 3G,C3§_;2GVQ2,§: f.: amd 524422 dated 21.922004} "".__ve;rt;eun'€+~vE.;i)% ef the value ef the cheque as "-TeQr'5:;_>e.é':sa:ien under Seetézm 35'? of Cr.P.C( and 313::

fee eémpie impyéeenmeﬁt sf éiﬁ §3;}/S each. cases decided 0:1 merits} i\.«'1';s<:. In View 0f the N0s.16317"?f1'i€}0 and closed, Vmb / R1113 16379,,/10 are ;i;:s;pos¢d - -. VA

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

M/S.Kanoria Industries Ltd. vs M/S.Bharat Agencies on 31 May, 2011