Smt.Shobha Venugopal W/O R Venugopal vs H.R.Jagadish on 24 January, 2014

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt.Shobha Venugopal W/O R Venugopal vs H.R.Jagadish on 24 January, 2014

Bench: N.Ananda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

    DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JANUARY 2014

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANANDA

         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.278/2013

BETWEEN :

Smt.Shobha Venugopal,
W/o.R.Venugopal,
Aged 39 years,
Civil Contractor,
Residing at 756,
12th Main Road,
Vijayanagar 1st Stage,
Mysore.                                   ...APPELLANT

     (By Sri.Y.S.Shiva Prasad, Adv.)

AND :

H.R.Jagadish,
S/o.Rajappa,
Aged 36 years,
Residing at No.Y, N5,
Yashodhara Nagar,
Bhogadi 2nd Stage,
Mysore - 26.                           ...RESPONDENT

     (By Sri.B.R.Sree Nagesh, Adv.)

                        . . . .

     This criminal appeal is filed under Section 378(4)
Cr.P.C. praying to set-aside the order of acquittal dated
29.12.2012 passed bys the I Addl. C.J. & J.M.F.C.,
Mysore    in C.C. No.1396/2009          acquitting the
                              -2-




respondent/accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

      This criminal appeal coming on for orders, this
day, the Court delivered the following:


                         JUDGMENT

The learned Trial Judge has acquitted the accused of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore the complainant is before this Court.

2. It is seen from the records that the learned Trial Judge has permitted the accused to give evidence on affidavit.

3. In a decision reported in 2010(3) SCC 83 in the case of Mandvi Corporation Bank V/s. Nimesh B.Thakur, the Supreme Court has held that the right to give evidence on affidavit is not available to the accused. In view of the above, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The matter requires reconsideration. In the result, I pass the following order:

(a) The appeal is allowed.

-3-

(b) The impugned judgment is set-aside.

(c) The matter is remanded to the learned Trial Judge to record evidence of accused in accordance with law.

(d) The complainant is at liberty to adduce rebuttal evidence.

(e) The learned Trial Judge shall decide the case on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(f) Office is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

JUDGE SPS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court