Vivek M Pattar vs Sharad Kumar Lodaya on 10 July, 2009

[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Vivek M Pattar vs Sharad Kumar Lodaya on 10 July, 2009

Bench: Jawad Rahim

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
D/«WED was we 10"' DAY or JULY, 2009

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE EAWAD RAH,I_:M.:5..:

CRL. P. NO.328/2004 C/W. c.*:2;i§}P'.'i~i<:g.'28o,f:;Ti,3m;;gg:  

IN CRLP. NCL328/2034:
BETWEEN:

1. Shri.\/ivek M. Pattar,
S/0 Mahadev Pattar,~.__
Aged about 44 years,.,'' _
Occuoation» Manager,'
Punjab National Bani<,V..} V
Gadag - 5.811101.  "

2. Shiri.P'aJ'rushofta,n'i,, 
Ageiig-45 ye'a.rS,.fj_ " _ 
OCC: /5\:;_sit. _Ma'nager .8{;Officer,
i?u..i1jab i\"ia._tiona'i Bank,
.»£§5adagA582"1V0J,_. _

  

 ArgeVi§.,_«4'8' yggars,
A '--Noww_'o._rkging as Chief Manager,
-,4PLin}~ai}i'i§éationai Bank,
'DefeAnc'e Colony Branch,
New 1-oeihi.

V'    :§;hr%.i<. G. Sharma,

Aged about 52 years,
Senior Regional Manager,
Punjab National Bank,





Regional Office,
Raheja Towers,
26~27, MG. Road,

Ba nga|ore~ 560 O0 1.  PETITEQ~§'i--E,'i}:S_'__"  " 

(By Sri.S. S. Eoshi, Advocate for petitioners  
Petitioners 3 and 4 notice dispei1sed_wi.t?3_}    "

AND:

Shrisharad Kumar Lodaya,
S/o Raichand Lodaya,

Aged 50 years, 

Occ: Business,   _
Residing at: Muigund Road,'  '

Gadag Town 8L oist. __ -   vA.'.ffviE'S3POi\ii)Ei'~§T
(By Sri.K. 1.. Pam,'"€i.,§ivociate?i,    

_ This crimii--i.a'%;.i_pet'itio_n'=is ﬂied u',{s"482 of Cr,F>,C. praying
to quas,?:--i----'ethge*~i. en1Ei,.r.e "-pVr'ocee'd--ivn.gs initiated against the
petitioners _on7._--»V _§he_ --,cor}f}pi_aint dated 12.8.2803 in
P.C.No.1V1S/:2_O£)2_cogiix/er.ted._a§ cc No.1149/O3 inciuding the
order dated._26,12;»20"Q3 taking cognizance of offences aiieged
under sections 4f_}3,:_4(;',':3 'i:,*'ixv sec.409 & 425 rfw sec..427 of
IPC aiongwith "se_c'§34 of WC against the petitioners gassed

 ti-"ie°'I 2,!-\.dd»i.z Civiiijufige (3r.Div.-) & JMFC 15' Court, Gadag,
 a.fi:C£'K(i'_'EL'._  , "

I1i"\i~e";'i<i©~.;2 So/.2904:

  BETW_EEi'§i.;, 

 i3'»iin;'ab i\iat'ionai Bank,
. '  Esanig Constituted and functioning

 T 'U.n'€Ser,.the Banking Companies,

 -...'.-(Acquisition 84 Transfer of Unciertakings)
 F\_(:_t7 19170, having its Registered Office,
 At New oeihi,

N/



Reeresented by its

Gacéag Branch Manager,

Sré.\/évei< M. Pattar,

S/0 Mahadev Patter,

Aged about 44 years,  
Occ: Manager.  eETIT:o_r»iE:LF'_<'V. '

(By Sré.S. S. Eoshi, Advocate)
AND:
Shr':.Sharad Kumar Lodaya,

S,/0 Raichand i.oo'ay'a,
Aged 50 years,

Occ: Business,  _ 1
Residing at: Magigund Road,  V  1   _ 
Gadag Town 8: Dist; V  --  "  '_ ,,F{'.ESPO¥\iDENT

(By Sré.%<. L. Peel', ;§j§i:yv,oc3jtej:-

irhis.,cr;iev:.n'a;lirigqetitiojr. Fi§«e.d_HL_J/is 482 of Cr.P.C. praying
to guasgh _the"vi'._ee.tiVr"e, '«,or'e.ceed_éngs inétéateci against tee
petitioner-_ 'on' _the-, "'CQ'i*K}>tjiV.aiﬂt sated 12.8.2003 in

i>.c.No.:1S/.2002 con"vé»'te"d.,,Vas cc No,1149/O3 iriciedmg the
order dated 26.1'2..2VO.O3*--,tai<i'ng cognizance oi' offences aiieged

 :;nder._§Sect.é.ons 49.3, 405 r/w sec.409 & 425 I'/W sec.42? of
" IPC a.i,_o'ng_A..twit»h, seC.34""of' IPC against the petitioner passed by
V__the'I.Addi.uC§yMié'~--.}iic¥ge (Jr.Div.) 8; JMFC 1'" Court, Gaciag, and

A'-..,The.petij'tiAons coming on for hearing this say, the Coert

'made 't!'}e"'§oiiVowéng common order:

W



ORDER

Petitioner in criminai petition No.2802{)O«<i is first accused and petitioners in criminal petition No.328f_4.i3.£j_i3.§ii~are accused No.2 to S in C.C.No.1149/2803 offence iounishabie under Section 433,» 427 r/w Section 34 of the §.P.C, oi; theiiié'-of-.iii'-Aidaji-tiipmait f';..:| m,An,c r1 mac \ 0. 1nr§§:r';'}'--¢V4--~.n ,-__.«_,,.i. n.;;§.,§sQ'.m',. f\[': Lian LEVEI Jutigtt 'tJi".LJii.} QL J:'' k.,, 00.9169 rnxscikVt;LJ:1:>i~vL;:v.gH UL Lest:

Droceedings under Section 482 .8oth_.thef?Qetitions are posted after notice'-..t'o_'t_he;_'te's--,tjond~ent time is duly represented. _ V

3. The are» That M/s Raichand Pasvir&_ Co.,ﬂ*duVring'-- the course of its business had availed iotherj creditiacyiiity from iv'?/s Punjab Nationai Bank » respondentﬁharadiatzmar Lodaya had stoodlhasv..co--;o'b|igant and guarantor. The transaction, 3'~~.._Vt-here¥'or'e,hiinvoived not oniy the business firm but aiso the A 'é<es»p_on"dent herein gaersonaiiy.

an/c M/s Raichand Pasvir & Co., Gadag, during the course of its business had supplied cottorl bails to Mrs,-"'-Angu Parameshwari Textile Mill (P) Ltd, Qindigul. Tihe_p__L;rchua'se-"rs M/s Angu Parameshwari Textile Mill (P) Ltd. wa5s_1:'cri.3ja[l:c"Wg; Raichand Pasvir 8: Co., a sum of ;Rls.V2'S«l¢_a'i<hs;.« .AlV:t':§«=.s_ts:vi't-:7'liad suffered financial loss due to which itIwas_.not i.rj:_-ta'po'siti:o?ri.:t'o~_ cl on the financial positio,n':' Pasv'i'r--Cc:., and was dissolved. At National Eank threatened M/<3', legal action for recovery V

4. V Sri. Lodaya, the l"€SDO§%Ci€|'ili herein who is, theu"g,_pa'r.a..nto'it lot M/s. Raicharrd Pasvir C0,, 'lit"'alori't;i)§iit5r:lr.hisA.brot'hée'r'"iV§anilal Lodaya approached the debtors 'Ar:tj:'Ls.V:Pat'ra:rrfi.eshwari- Textile Mill (P) Ltd, to work out a settl.ei'nent..'it'in The Managing Director of r-'l;'s. Angu 3"~*«___V'~Pararries,hlrvari Textile Mill '(P) Ltd, agreed to make part it ﬁ"l)A."c'.i'\),'_b1_31:.:'€A.,'-llt towards dues of M/s. Raichand Pasvir 8a (TDD: and .':V'.'is_s.€ued cheque bearing i\%o.348OS3. for Rs.S,C){},CrC}O,f--. The car all the dues of the firm ir:"-vs.li,Li"ml3~si_irm, 'ThI_s ihzadlllimpact (1 intention of the respondent was to credit the said cheeue towards amount dire by M/s. Raichand Pasvir & Pengae Nationai Bank' The cheeue on presentat§?o*.;%s:"'wfa-sh* dishonoured in the year 1999 but he~c:o.:1tinriediVV"te'.';;;r'e\»raé.£V on V' debtors to discharge liability. :£écco_'_rd'i'ing'iiy.,_°regs:

Parameshwari Textile Miii (P)ViL_t4d~Vr.,_ re§\}a§_idVater§_Ath'e--»~t;heque'-it on 26.12.2501.

Sn'. Sharad the'AA*».r'e»s.f3ondent herein (referred to as the cheque to the first petitioner'. for clearance wrt:i"r due the cheque the ameunt realised vvs'iio::!dV account of ivy/s. Reiczharid Pasvir.-8; in"-disiitharge of its iiabiiity to the Bank. iTheTirsti{i)et"i't.ioneraeifepted the cheque on behaif of Punjab 1 Pv.1at.i._o n a 2.. Vfor_}~rea'i isati on.

atT{he.ares.pondent--cornp£aina.nt waited for response from "..jt't.hAeti*-éganir about the fate of the cheque. it is ailerggeri, he rnadieﬂ severai attempts to know the deta-iis from the first ""V_H;VJ'etitioner but he refused to give particuiars. However, the am respondent iearnt the cheque was ciishoneured. He therefore requested the férst petétioner to return the cheque to hirrr with banks endorsement so as enable him to Dr'OC€E_d..V§3"§}_EiIfiSt the drawer M/s. Ange Parameshwari Textiie recovering the amount covered under >cheq:.i;e';"'sis"-ai'§eged"= he had informed the first petitioner',.__his"interiti_on'to agairast the drawer of the Cher-cwe for effence1,:pu_nés_!§ra§3!e_ > under §e<:tion 138 of Negotiabi_e"-1:nstf"t:n1entf_Act.V} But the férst petitioner refused Vtosihaind c2;ve.r""t_he:chet;i,ie in «::;uest%on and held threat of.rseverari'~act:i:ons Ti:,ifei'eefteir_.i aiso fvianiiai Loriaya approached the 'fi_rst.:'pfetitioner and also addressed a Eetter datecfA.O.7.f)14.'u2O._f}2'»vvhi<f'h vi/'has received by the first goetitioner . i"on¢{;*8.0§_'.=2GtO2. Ihﬂsteiad of returning the cheque the first No.2) is aiieged to have issued notice purr;..oVrtinig~ '_t'o.--AfV%:>e on behaif of the Punjab National Bane ZR"".__V"antedativn__ij it as 0301,2002 but posting it on 637.531.2002 A j'cAa'i~§.i.n:C.i~' treon the absolved firm and the respondent to pay _»Rsi5,00,000/w towards the dishonoured cheque on the WA/ premise that the cheque was issued in favour of the bank. In- other words it is aiieged that the first accused ti'eate'.d-.gthe chegue issued in favour of i'*«'i;'s. Raichand Pasvir Cheque issued in favour of the Ptmjab imaiig if threatened to prosecute the resoonziieintiiangdiathe the absoived firm for offence ou.n_ishabie::'i--nder the hiegotiabie Instrument Act.

The respondent as "a-iso.,Perthe,rjéofaédi/'s;, Raichand iiiasvir 8: C0,, (since absoiued) reoiieiicig to .t'h_é 'making it clear that the che{_;;ue..i{vas«-- sjubmiitited to the bank for "reaIisa:tioni'f"'ahd issued to the bank towards discharge' of foams' :.?1"hVe'g.'..t_:n'*ia'tie it deer that M/s. Raichand Pasvir g&«.Cgo_, was the "Pa3}ee" and bank was oraiy an agent to obt--ain:,,,'r'ea'i'isatioiiHoifiiehegue. The bank was not a payee Whien things stood thus, it aupears the bank had "3'iu'p.roiceeeded"'against the partners of M/s Raichand Pasvir & Co., __'isirn_u'itaAneousiy in a Civil Court as aiso initiated prosecution

--:'..:Va'gaiinst them for offences punishable under section 485 sf d&€i~/ IE") complainant learnt of the prosecution launcheti against huh in CC No.40/2802 as also the prosecution ieitieted a.§aii'1st partners of M/s Raichand Pasvir and Corn, its CC by accused no.1 purporting to ee an action "

Punjab Nationat Bank, The complainant there.after'7.fAite--d complaint before the V;ti_ris~dpictiov'rie_l'.l§{iVa.t;;€é3~t:vVr'é%'tt%"1 invoking section ZQG Cr.P'._¢x;:-..a_g'a_inst."lwgvpminjab National Bank ar't--r;§._"':«--the: herein te prosecute and offences punishable<.t}:";'s_ 4e3','li'4ios,p:t««%§»o9,I 427 t/W Sec.34.'..of' on1:.the__..Valleeation that the petvitioners'-'t;Ver_e'itnf"pl_a'r'.ti_cutarly, 2"' petitioner had ind'u'ig_e'd_ act to defraud the comptainantcVa--nd7--._»th~e\ firm. In detail he has v_»»etd\re':-ted ltd'-sth__e__"circumstances which constitute fVa"c..i_e case for offence ptsni_shable under the if._-upr'e§iisVionsljreferred to above. The relevant in_"deta_ileVd'i._rnlaverrnents are in paragrat3h--4 to "'p:;r'a.gr'a'"ph M12 of the complaint Vf"3.ased on the averments referred to above he eiteged the Manager \/ivek Mahadev Pattar vaccused tio.2 and we E E Assistant Manager, Purashottam ~accusecl no.3, hat? li"idt§|g€<j in acts to his detriment, which acts were improper, il_l__ega§, negtigent and unlawful and dishonest. He malafide intention they had withheld the cheqt.ie.,"~to here from proceeding against the dra.we:<,of ::i¢'li¢hrtéqgé; nu other accused are alleged to have co'hni:»{é_ed'l with"second"l_"'--a,r§t§.i third actiused in their fraue' and tisésf '{rr_ustj, * V to prosecute them for offences....;;,t;rn_is'h_,able "imrJ,,er,ﬁsections 403, 409, 40s, 42s and 4:-:Vc,r irrs_>_cf;.i';, it

8. The 'Vie-armed ﬁjtzrisciJi:cti,on.la_!.._Magistrate has taken cognizance a_'ndlvi',_--.iss{j.eci-firnocess against the petitioners. Aggrievedilby 'itthe.yia:r'e it;-.._t.h'i«s"petition seeking to quash the proceeo"in{;js.

--v._f1n«..,,s'up_port of the prayer in the petition, iearnecl Counsel fo'r'--'7oet,i=tioners, would contend that facttrai matrix ﬂcliselosegl by them in their petition shows that the partners of 'EM,/s Raichand Pasvir & Co, and the complainant had intlulged ._,lr'§n"'f,raiidalent acts to defraud the bank. In that, they had Wlymlalnigtiiated stock in~trade itself. They offerea to Na hypothecate the cotton bails of high quality for i'inai2cial assistance. But the private detectives of the bank fo..t.1'~n.ti-«._t_lhia_t the cotton balls were not as per its specification-.l3t§t"~~}gi"alste_h'i- cotton was filled up. The fraud cameto the l<.nVov'v"ie'.C_§gVe'iofﬁthe bank through its investigator and they sfougiht"t_o"~i"e'cc§ver..Athe:

loan the firm dissolved itself. The~..pai"tn'ers made' tﬁliemﬂseives-. ' :7,' scarce so also the COl1Wi}_l'ali'lE:li3C._..._ éolemirums unable to traceiatherbo.,rrtoy4Jei'*s"a--hd had no choice but to initiate pr_osecutiori"'fo:r"h fr'au{_i, c'he"ati'ng and also for misuse of trust tag th:e_co_;fnp._anfy..' T'_heil.j'ba_n§;§.valso'«».i_niti_ateci'Vproceedirwgs for recovery of the amount on the loan transaction and that pro.ceedi'ng~._:is'still o'en5:ing.

__:L1, =,\i\.{_h'er__: the accused were summoned to face the tri'al'.,*~.l:he"cVo'_n3.p'lh;ai'nant retaliated by filing a private complaint j as a 44co..u"i91te'i*".Vblast. He submits that the allegations made in "'u.,th"e'icornolaint by the complainant are far from trutrr. They

- aiir-elliniteneed to only indict the officers who have no personal involvement in the matter. Each one of them have acted in aw discharge of their official ciuty representing the banking institution registered and incorporated under the piimr_is.i_oin_s of the Banicmg Companies (Acquisition 8.:

Undertakings) Act 1970. ._

12. Each act referrecé '£Q=i_Fi thelcpolmDiai!'?l.."_iStan'oV%'§iciaVi"'--

act of the petitioners and none injhégnifsiplelrsonal act. He submits that coVi"'n;3'lia4ir':t itseif show that the cheque in in favour of the compiainapnty"fglrirep was wVa.s:.fciefi;':eo uncéer the provisions mi. The payee was M/s E"he_""c'h'eque was deaosited into the accovxijnpt Pasvir & Co. but the cheque bounced... Thei'efo~r.e.,:~ the person entitled to claim Cnecgue was i"onii/V"'set/sp~.c.,r1a'iic'hanotliasvir & Co.. Since the said firm was riwtiereabouts of its partners was littie or not known to,~the:'..-bank, the bank was w';i:h':n its right to retain the 1"~w___Vef:hec;L:e'._'Tat that juncture the coznplainant may have sought "-'i°_or_pr'e'tairn of cheque but as he had not established his legal entitlement, it was refuseci, which act is referable to the bank 5&0"

*3' and not to the accused. Secondly, he submits that the cheque in question was the eroperty of the bank as was submitted to it for credit into the toan account. * of the Bank on that impression possibly'didnot'=retui'n_'_r»the_V cheque. Merely because they did not retarn lithe' malice could be attached to the'ir.,::C'o.ndazc't. V The next ground is a stranger to the transaction_ -'en.c'a.:s:h_r$ient of cheque. Neither he was in;:~due_ Therefore, non~return callsllfor no action against the accu_sed_l that even if it is to be constrliedthatthe.V_.a»l'l:e'giatijolns"made in the complaint refer to certainacts orV.,or'nissio"n or commission by the EiC{Li..iSE?€§, it 'does'.'i"noﬁ~.l"f3ll'l'izyéthinvvthle mischief of sections 403, 405, 409, 2:-2 §«.iOr&?3i~?;"?...o'f I've;

in ;"s.ui.)Veort of his contention that the complaint filed A wffwasll"a.s_ a counter blast, he relies on the decision of apex Court" in the case of Anil Kumar vs. State of Bihar,

5 SCC 248, He further referred to ptoceedings in &\rQ"/( against complainant and partners of M/s Raichand Pasvir & Co., though the transaction was civil transaction relatiVr=ig"tVo borrowing and lending of money. He submits !--'T,.___ is to tie presiirned that the amount borrowed.--fro~itiif.tgli'e::it had remained un--paid, the bank hvaéd z_»3'~ri:ght...to'"'res'o:i=*t_. --' proceedings for realisation of th:¢'*3_vl'TWO£i:TiI", and molt}to4_viHnd::3lgve in prosecuting the 'oorrowers. E----le siu-bVn'i~i,Vts t...3t..2hZ.COiJi?ltS were discontinued because illegal pr'oce'_dur'e--_'was_ado ted b the . 9 'I' petitioners to file-vcompi*ai»nt'~ borrowers to prosecute themExforaio_fji'e.nces:._punisha'tz'%e"'ti"nder sections 420 and 465 ofHI_Pc»_.._'7---

14. transpired reveals that petitioners hate.» acted "on'"their own only in their persoriai icapatiiignx a"nd"l'ngot asviﬁainager or representative of the bank. 2'l'*herefvoii'e:[=._thef~.complainant had no option but to seek redre-ssai E)','_v;l'[:".l"iAtKiatil'i(_;] proceedings ieferred to above. He has ii."-._Vt'alg:egn mesthrough the nature of allegations to show that the _'ailleg.a_t.ions come within the mischief of sections 4-03, 4053, VA 42.53, 427 IPC.

15. Keeping in mind what is urged by both sides and as it is not in dispute that M/s Rai<:hand- Pasvir 8:

borrower of money from M/s Pungab National i3a_i';'£{;"'a.i_~:-dd:

cornptainant was a cowobiigant and fvZ|Li&1f'3iit'x";"i"»..ij't')~!fVtfiiiiit loan, we proceed on the premise=__tha.tc;fhe--ic9\}va's'--.4c'ei'vtaViAr:iyf involved in the transaction which-was tr«E.pa'rt'ite;;'"'fha:t is, iﬁoan transaction between the bank and"i«?{1'/'s.vVRaichand" Paéwir & Co and the guarantee offered.._.by_tt*iV_e

16. Undou-Abgtedtx,/,§:'A {:or'h:p!aii'i'ar;.tvv'V was interested with the resuit is also not in dispute that the, was presented by the cornptainanttoi the baiitkr' encashment. There shail be no .-v..difficu!ityV»irelatinig'-wthpepse facts because in parai~9 of the V"._Vp'eti'tion,,thpecfpetitioners themsetves have in iirieciuivocai tern§s--.::taté%ir'%:thL=i V 13' petitioner submits that before filing i. the" Recovery cases in C}A.221/2003 and V ii.-'.R.606/2003 against the respondent add other office borrowers, the respondent gave to the bank on 02.11.2002, in the prescribed form post dated M"

El) cheque No.3<Ii8OSit issued in the name of l'«"i,«'s____ Raichand Pasvir & Co., for Rs.S,O0,000.00 on Tamil Nad Mercantile Bank Ltd, oititiigtii, by M/S Angti Parameshwari Textile Mill Dindigtil, and to credit the procevedés t()'.v'f;lv1;4é'ii..l':Q;:il1' account of M/s Raichandt P;§3S\{i'r Accordingly, the -bank sent it 'f'or"'tcolleCti"oh§V"on ' 22.22.2002 to its btairtch,'~i.3.*,:ti'n.;fata Vi\tati'mn_a_'iv_, Emit,"

Dinidigui, Tamii i\i_a<iu, anti encashment. The Vs--a_ifc€ 'CA§7'.§3Q?a'€lxE£~UVfO.l;t!,l_'l'i8tE§'\,/ was diS§7OI'iOLJi'€{}. The f;ie_titioner that the above chet§i.re.,:'v\ias v'2(;§'.t§6,1.9i}}'£% for Rs. 5,oo rig,i,i*_al'iy_ o_resentetiWV through the i<ai'nataVk-a_t"5a:n:l»< ﬁyxlthe firm of WS the same was retti"tnéd_ thereafter, the said Ch€C|Ué~._W aS Vg'i\_/é'n: etmjab Natiotia: eatilt, C§;ada_g Bfanch',"after revalidating the said cheque "with..,..,.,r,h'e.,'newiyoatye as 26.12.2001. The saicé ' ,V'was---_given to the bank was not for the H onro'os.e-._o'f;;'bVaying the amount to the I'€SDOE1{§€?}'t as a.._l_'i'eged by him in the Coiriplaint, as there is no peisotiai 58 Account: Of' Current Account in the Tlname of M/s Raichand Pasvir 8t Co, except the Cash Credit Account No.793, which is the loan account. Hence, the said Ch€C§E.}€3. which is the aw subject matter of C.C.§\io.1}49/2003 was not___ meant for crediting the amount if reaiised personai account of M/S Raichand Pasvir but crediting the proceeds if honoured the liability due under the Cash..CreGit"'A'cco»ii'ntH.' No.79} However, the amount',due'un'deee:j it dishonoured cheque wasgnot paid'ieithecr..".b$}V"the'xC." drawer or the drawee, M/st-vt.R'aié.chand--. it Hence, there was ai3.s0Euteii>~,z ﬁo=._i*r~..a'iafide' against M/s Raich«ai".d' or the respondent who is On §.tt'2«eV "_'bas§i_s the"~:"s~a;ne}* tiishonoui-ed cheque. Pasvir & C0, viz.__1_) Sihzriii---tééavniialx,'-s/'0' wéhaiind Lodaya, 2') Srntx i\ia_J\/alb'a_AiA"VCW/0vTi:Ra.i:ciiand' Lodaya, and 3} smt. SmV'ithha., \fv',f_oV 'iihiarad'i'i<;u;jna.r Lodaya, have fiied on the biasis ofthe'saidpdishonoured cheque against the upetitio'n.eHrs'anV'd Punjab National Bank, Gadag "'i"F3re§--.nch"",2_ a vﬂtiohnsumer case in Complaint before the District Consumer C."-RedresL:aV;'a::vcase in Complaint No.24?/2002 before ""-t|1e..'HD%'strict Consumer Redressal Foriun at o"h.a§1=waci, on 29.10.2002 and the same is being ,V"tjo:'itested by the petitioners and the bank." 019/

17. From the said statement, it is clear that it is t§'§€ compiaioant who had handed over the cheque to pe..%;i;ti.oi:.et no.1 (accused no.2) for reatising the amount the amount to the account of M/s Ra_ic,hanc§ was therefore the person who had hi$':nd€jd'C;VVe'i-r.tEt1.eV"{§"?'€_}V{@a-#:.%~E3'V:'i:F-IA trust to the 1" petitioner (accused for'v:'e:3}:;:avshnﬁenMt._:'*. Untioutitediy, it was %ncumbentV___oV:}..:ti1e_at.1t¥'io%fisedv:}agent of the bank to ,commuriicaVte...tO_the hao sobrnitteci the cheque about its :r.e~su'i_t:}" case of the petitioners some other source or__ & Co. There was no o-their-,pe-rsownivexicejpt,»'a"i.c:§'ear biiateral transaction, in which the compiain.__a"nt h'a_d'4Vrst:"t>::'*f.;eitted the cheque to the accused .--v..'no.2.»«tgiiho"wasniin-..:cvhart5e of the Punjab Nationai bank for :~ea'ii--»Si3tion«.pof_the cheque. As on a demand maoeitay aim 'ciieoue was_'*~not"handed over, the compiainants grievan»::e is j it was zdo.ne'to prevent him from proceeding against orawer 'tfvinz.'c-M/siiiiangu Parameswari Textiie Miiis (P Ltd', undt-':r the pi"ot/ision of section 138 of Negotiable instruments .Ar:t{ for 'ﬁmvrecovery of the amount. Since that process of iaw was $7"

between accozmt holder and the baek. it has eiso bearing on the express or irnpiied contract between the compiair}'a..n_t-..ei*s.d the bank, as he was eetitied to know the result _ in question. Since the above provision 'bri:'3g5---::witi1in'~_i{:£_ mischief not only the direct acts but e:yeri"'o.r*nis'$§ens;' prima facie case made out to proce_ed egaixrist t%i'v}:%'§'r£<:yj<:iiiv,rV;'ties:: to 2 U1' , try them for offerce ptinisiiabie ex ":3-,{}S--.o

18. Simiiariy, we iioitiiceii-f.r:om __t:he.AAfavib'ie_gatéohs made that the compiaieeni:'jhas§;_iiiyeked-..yb'r?ojyiusioins of se<:.eOE--'i [PC which refers by pubiic servant or by ba:-2i<ef. Sincév_the'3.4ee.titi.o'r2ers.were officers; of the bank, they comewithin' of 'agent" Since criininai breach _ef,.trust' ais'd.efin'eoA"'.u/s 405 IPC is ailegeri againet them whiiieri.di"s.charge""'ef duties as a bankers? ereyisien of su'er<:tio _n it ~ V hti y invo i<e d .

19. not wish to go into the question of justifying ..a_o_p|ic'a'biiity of section 425 and 427 of IPC. This is '_'b_eeau'se" we are not deciding lis between tee pertiess. .:'_4'Refeirence that has been made to various 'aspects is eniy fer ti?"

com p l afnia nt.~ is 7.1.1992 the appellant "himself had informed the aiitlioiii_ties about the threats he was receiving from FEESQC)l1§€¥§'t;'2_.:"é3V!"iCl_' others. 'thereafter, on 16.12.1992, the appella.nt-- the police officials about the threat receti»vedA if 2 ane others and i'63{'§lJ€St€d to ;3r0tect'<liis:..lif'e. Gs'i_?':..i the first time, the respondent rat:i§'{c0mAb'Eai_nanAti-,:fi'l'eti"'*repio{t alleging that Civil Surgeqn. had:,§§~t7*Vl'lilv?1§"lEl.,§3d Vixioticing these undisputed facts, the that lZIl"':€f§'Ef was inordinate delayV__in fi'i'ir"yg'at3oLit alleged demand for br.ibe»; a cemgglaéiit was filed to release the seized i"neVdAiciiie:x..Vh""I.rj':-..the»'Vfa.i£t""situ"ati0n, it was held that the complaint "a_ action iiaittalieeti he the case facts are different. The petitioners theht.se'l«ves"o"?J"~._no;tV"vdis tite certain facts which are sufficient . _ , 9 tr; holdu4"tha"t.aaltlwas not well between the cemplaihant and V respp ndlents perso nallyi &~Q~

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court