K M Nagaraj vs T C Govindegowda on 17 February, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 9]

Karnataka High Court

K M Nagaraj vs T C Govindegowda on 17 February, 2012

Bench: Jawad Rahim

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATADKA'AT'--SANC§ALOR'E7= 

DATED THIS THE 7;"FD6\¥{<gFSFE'DIRUARY_:%'2O',I2 ~ 
THE HETELBLEPFJVEAEUKTIIII25iéY$'é8sRA"'00""IOO 
BETWEEMINAGARAJ   I  I

S/O K.v.MARIYARRA..GOwDA,;' ~  
MAJOR, R/AT KuCHODAI,'=.__":= '  
YEDADALLIVVILLAQ_E_,"  _ j'  ._
KIGGA HQBLI, SRINGERI TA.LU_K,~  *
CHICKM;1\GAL~uR..DIS%T"" " ' 

     " =g.C.VAPPELLANT
(BY SRI--f__\'/;1_JAY'KUMAPQT; ADv., FOR M/S BLACK

COATS ,L-A-WA FIRM*,<:;ADv»;_,.')V.__ ' 

AND' TLC.GOVIN'D'E(3OWDA}* '
S/OVVCHIIN'NAIACH.,   
MAJOR; ULALvA1_LI_vILLAGE,

. KASABA ..HO'B7LI, *

 RING ERI" TALLJAK,

 CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT

 ~   RESPONDENT

 '(I3Y«V..."SVRIV_i.~ IJARI NAGARAJA, ADv., FOR SRI
A. NAGARAJAR'RA, ADV.,)

THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 397 AND 401 CR.P.C

A ..fPR'A'Y«ING TO CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE

_ ' --]M-FCi, SRINGERI. IN C.C.NO.S2/99 DATED 03.03.01 AND

  SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE P.O., Fast
  __TTaCk Court,--I CHIKMAGALUR, IN CRL.A NO.27/01.

H



  at

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the c.o:ur_t
delivered the following   V

JUDGMENT

Complainant's appeal against~..acq-luittallifxcf it respondent--accused by the judgmen't.Vinf.'pu'gned

2. Perused records.

3. Material facts nee.d:in.g re_fe're'rrce'

a) Appellant sought respondent-

T.C.Govindegowdalifiar 138 of the Negotiable referred to as the Act, for:v'ib'r'e\/itlyi} borrowed Rs.70,000/-- from cheque dated 7.6.1998 drawn on éréingxeri.:E3--_rar;ch*'of Syndicate Bank. The cheque pr_ese_An.tation was"'dishonoured necessitating issuance of on 19.12.1998.

"""-b)v-.Accu'sed received the notice, but failed to comply .gwiAthc_.the""demand made. He denied there was any such it -_t'ran'sa:ction with the complainant. 3

c) During trial, complainant tendered evidence as PW1 and produced the impugned cheque at produced 4 documents. The learned trial judge defence of the accused was not ten_abl.e__and_-'colnvictedi h_'im,=-_ ll' directing him to pay Rs.7O,OOO/I: Cox/ere'd.. "under:"i_i"thVe.i.:

cheque.

d) Assailing it, was Crl'.'A.Nio:.27/O1.

Learned appellate judgellhas of the trial court and complainant is in appeal u 31".

4. Learned the appellate court seriously erred in the trial court without any reason.' He submits complainant has proved his case that issued the cheque towards existing debt orand on presentation it had bounced. V _ Ther"eforve:,. "burden had shifted on the accused to establish .thiat._.theV"cheque was not issued towards any existing debt 'o'r.VVleg'al liability.

ﬁg"

5. I have examined the records and re-appraised the evidence available. No doubt both the courts below7h2a\/he held complainant had produced the cheque signature of the respondent which, on presenitatvioni,' bounced. The contention of the altered was not consideredgby thelltrial court" 'asiani important circumstance where'asj"the le~a_rne--d appellate judge has perused s'-a.ndl'~found it contains material alteration in the date. 'T

6. The noticed the complairi.an.tV_h"'aid:"a'Vd;rr1VVi_tt»ed "i'i'ad_V'obtained a blank cheque from ,had:'f§.lled' up the contents. On the basis of judge held that though ._VV.givingg_{ga siblankx' was legally permissible and the have filled it up, material alteration was The learned judge was right in .Vnotic'i"ng 'thlatlit was not a case of inchoate instrument as "3'~44"'V..petirr.1__i4ssible under Section 20 of the Act. It was a case of mgmatlerial alteration covered by Section 87 of the Act. 5

7. Section 87 of the Act envisages 'any material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders the sarrvieiioid as against any one who is a party thereto at making such alteration and does not cons.eVnt.Vvth.ereto3,"

unless it was made in order to ;:arr»ypO_;ut.gg the ~-.co--m»mVo.n_ f intention of the original partiesf 'therefore,'.'vb.u!rd'e'n on the complainant to establishllvtnhtat the a"lt.erat.iVonVzi:n ll'-_Vx.P1 was by consent of madlewn by the respondent himself. In evidence, it amounts to nialterial allteration'"whichrefnders the cheque unenforceable. the opinion of the learned thehtcheque was unenforceable and proseucutiori accused was, therefore, vitiated _canno't pevfa'ultedV.i"':

Jarn-.4VA:satisfied the appellate court's judgment reversiiinvg" finding of the trial court is just and proper

-- and l.egal---}:A.a'ri'd calls for no interference. In the result, the if ppeal fails.

Sd/-

JUDGE r{fvgh*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court