Kanoria Industries Ltd vs Basavaraj Biradar on 11 November, 2010

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Kanoria Industries Ltd vs Basavaraj Biradar on 11 November, 2010

Bench: K.Govindarajulu

é\Q }_ ,_

IN THE: HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCEUFI' BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 1 1m DAY GE' NOVEMBER, 2033

BEFORE  V

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE K. GO¥'IND;:\f{1%a*§£VELif  " 

CRL.A.No. 1 1 10/2004- (A} 

Between:

Kaneria industries Ltd.,
Cement Diviaion, Bagalk<>t~5873. 1 1.  _
By Mr.A.R.Nidaseshi, Ofﬁcer (Legai) V _

{By Sriﬁ/IReDatar, Advacate} 

And:

Mr.BasaVaraj Birada:c;_:PrQpriet<V)VVrV;V' ' 

M,' 3. Rajesh Trading 
Dr.Ba1avant Redd}; CQn5;Vp_1_ex,* 4' _     .
Near BLDE Ashram Road, VBijea:§1.i';, V'  V M.

V ____     _  _ ...Respondent
(By Sri.I.R.E3irada_i' Advocates)

This C'r1.A'; is ﬁ1eci'LiP.de1<._SeetI0n 378(4) Cr.P.C. by the advocate
for the appe11ai*:§_pfayinV'g t1V1at~thVi;;~: Honfble Court may be pleased to set
aside the order Vof acquV§--.tta1._ of'~"Vthe respondent in €eCoN0:874 /2001
dated 05;.VOS.2004 oﬁﬁhe ﬁle 0f the I Add}. JMFC, Bagalkot acquitting

VVtVh.e_ res.::V;)_(i-':2:c1}:e1f1t:,g'Vaccuéeei....£o:-' the effences punishable under Sections
2138?, .142 of1'~3;i. Act;

*   on for ﬁnal hearing this day, the Cam':

V VV zielivered the Vft}i.?€;VV'ivir1g:

JUDGMENT

The cempiainant in private compiaini No.54/2&8} is the VV"-._ Vap§::e§a.::: Sm ihés aepeaé, After eegzziganee the said erivaée cempiairsé: is émmbered as C.C.i'§e.8?-4/2&6}.

-9,

2. Necessary facts fer censideratien ef the _4vmfese::t appeel are as feiiewsz Cempiainaht is the Pubhc Limited C0mpat:y,A'_:'e;1gs::g:ed manufacture, saie of cement. While' sob,"Ttheugaecused.Wis ,af proprietary concern, they are d€&t}.iH'g in ce_rr'1entt _iw.::i:e .so,:}th'e accused has issued a cheque "V'he.s;;>jng "dated 12.033200} for a sum of ?3:Z;a'fV2O/ Shri.' vﬁdidvdheshwar Ccwoperative Bank VLtd., isIt.--'«:.:tN:sIs:r__dpresented for encashment; it is lodged under Section 138 of N41. ,

3. "ac'cused has 'ap--pee1*ed, denying the issue of cheque but ce_nterided__that«,thete-- is no material to show that debt payabdlegédin 'c'0t1s.od1;_ah-eeed'wdwith the cheque. In this circumstg1n'ce. the 1e»:11jh'ed tfiai Judge has acquitted the accused. J Ieaffie-d--~" advocate for the complainants stJ:'hLsta«rT1tiate--s_«'ce'12temdir1g that cheque is admitted contains the = So, presumption under Section 118 of NI.

gétetj canéubeidifatxtn. Notice issued prior to the filing of the case is V4sdfﬁetedet._«mdtet'§at to prove the {i'3I"iS8'.C'[iQf1: Qhiy at the trial of cddseddnumher of cement bags supplied is questiehed. So, the of the teamed trad Judge is net pzegeezt The V' suhmissien is ehatiengedt Centehding entire burden is en the cemgieisant, cemptséhatit has te prove that eheque is issued fer' »s,W»»~W"

-3"

Iegaﬁy recoverable' There is no such evidence. _;E5--0, §';:"ppei':_ e-- approach of the magistrate. V

5. In the Eight of the above'; pofht 3t:h«at'1'a:vl_jse.VV consideration is as under: ; .A V' ' ' 0 Whether 'she appfetéeh ef -.the VZe::aVmec:Z....V€zifzcz=Z Judge is justzﬁed in eiishiissinghhihexheehzpéqiné?

6. Careful :eadingA..of:._See't§_ehL I238', to 142 of Ni. Act, is necessary in the ease.

The scheme of the complainant to presentzvgvhfehhe produce the materia} te Show that 15 debt by the accused that is payable :0 the4'u"eo:ﬁ1p1ainant«:s On the other hand, when this '5'm,,j¢ﬁ'.e.;.Asa eLi'sehargeé complainant, there is a dug; on the aeeuéedu he is not be liable to pay the amount. *~.Undef of NJ. Act, the accused is permitted to lead ~ - .. «:he,eviden"ee L 1 .. ?.__ "Apex Court in err v. T.'\/KS' Ltd, [(200310 see 504} 4hae";_VVe;~;p:1ained the expreesien debt. Deaiing with the ':§:*esu}mptien in Hiten .P.DalaZ IF. Bratindranalli, (Appeal ' '1{3%imir:aZ) see of 1995' we gage in view :35 Seetéer: 139 ef M. Aer, heid i..uhEess the eentrary ES preved, that the helder sf eheqzge reeeieeé the eheq:.:e3 ef the naeure zfeferzeé te Eh Seeiéeh

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court