Karnataka High Court
Mr.M Sureshchandra Shetty S/O M Lokayya ... vs Mohammed Kasim S/O Late M Fakir on 24 March, 2011
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24'?" DAY OF MARCFI 201 1
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. N. KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.136'7' ore' 2oo4_m~. j
BETWEEN:
MR.M.SURE3SHCHANDRA sI»iE'1TY_ V
S/O LATE MLOKAYYA SHE'I'£'Y. "
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
BALLA.L BAGH, V 2
MANGALORE. V .'A13E%.E;;,1.;;AN'£'
{BY SR1. PRAMOD KULKARNI
sm 'Uj?,.M{§§g1't'A; *£§DV(§CiA'FiES)
A N D ":- "
M0:~«1AMfi!;E:3 "
Appah .u*' '
S_;"C3. LA'I'E MV¥'A;;<1R_.__. »
* .2N?»= FLG0R;.«s1~1AHNAz COMPLEX,
' ,NIR.1E3C-3_ '»'1,YA ROAD,
B.LfI\3D.E3R., "s¢uaN1GA1,0I{h:.
.....RESPONDEINT
(EV .sMfi".r$AIz:a\1r<:E3fA .S.CI--IANAL, A:_)VocA'm )
"ff"IES CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNIDER SECTION
(1) «:3: £4) CR.P.C. BY Ti-1E3 ADV. FOR APPELLNT
"PRAYENG TO SET ASEDEC "THE JUDGEMENT DATED
_. O3.08.2004 PASSED BY ".i'H'E V JMFCK, .MANC:ALORE EN
CC . NOB 1.856/2003 ANIT) HCJLEDENG THE'.
§{f§SE3C¥E\EE)EsZ§'é'§',fC§3.CCESBEIIB GUELT OF 'i'}~iEi OE'?-'i€;'€ClCS
E3E}'N§S§T--iAB£,,E UN'[3E?§'~?; SE?.ZCTION E38 READ V\fET}"i 342 OF
:~;_r.L_AC'I1
13;
THIS APPEAL COMING FOR ORDERS ON TIQIS DAY
THE'. COURT {)E§L.IV£§RI£I) 'I'I"iIi? FOIILOVVING:
JUDGMENT
This appeai filed under Section 378£~1.3.'4'_;8Q_"§?i';j':°e:,>f Cr.P.C. on <)btaining speeiai leave o'f.. 'isu directed againm; the judgment by the V JMFC, Man§3a'E0_:fe, dismiseing the complaint" byt cofiplainant herein for the offenve-efifju1::?_§s}3_ahie_'zfilder Section 138 of the Ne'§et.'iawh}e for short, 'N.I. Act') and aequifiting the of the said offence.
2) Shetty, the father of the . épe'§3{i1e'i:efh' ..herei'fi"'fiied a Compiaint. under Section 138 "::_,_/.{x.';;e V%%,s:';};~he NJ. Act and Section 200 of Cr.P.C. a1ga111$'t.'i:h'eA r*esp0I1de_m. alieging the ofiferaee puI1Is.hab1e n:1nder...Se(:t,i()n 138 ef the NJ. Aet., iruer aiia e0.m:end_i.ng ' '~ th:.a.i«; for discharge of the debt due by him. the accused Pi-ssued tide cheque in question to the cr()mplai11a.I1i. for a sum 01" ?}.fi'CLOQO/'~ anai whefl the Said Cheque was §3E'€:',S€:?'.I1§'.€{i for é3fl'"§{7ElS?:}'}I1'£€3§'1"§g {he Ssame wag remmed with ii ", M '''= '=..../'' '-
the Bankers endeasenaezai. 'Account': closed' and in spite of service of 11<)ti<:e, the accused failed to pay the a1mcaL1n'£ e::>ve'red under the cheque. The re%sp-:f)fi*:1ent~ aceL1sed pleaded 110$: gguiity for the a1Léc::us=.;«:zti:§;1 _ __'r.E'1;;:cE..:.=;:
a,gai1:1st. him and claimed to be tried.
3} Before the ease e011I'€iebe_ Tp(T)sted_ f017v e;v"i::i'e.1:1"c'.*e,_ the original (:omp1ainanf.Vdj_:ed.,% TherefQrVev.: 'pfjesenff peiltioner, the son ofihe Qrigirial ht':--3.mp1e1'11anf,' Came on record ass his legai 1"e;;§reSeef£tati_\fe-. contillued the proeevedingrs. tria}, the petitioner herein eXamined--.._himeeEfh:1_S and his mother, the wife of Qfigjnal ""C:@m_pi211nant was examined as PW.2. ' ._P1_ V were marked.
Thhe 1'esponder11:.--accused during his under Seczttien 313 of Cr.P.C. denied all the AA.1:£1<:rimi1'1ai.i:ag eir(::,m15ate1nees azppearirag againefiz him,' "His principal defence w.:1s that, eelrhex", there were some :1;1=:3:T;et',211'§J 'é:ra.11ssz§.s;iri',i<ms; betweext him and the ewigingzi <:<3mp1.2%.i:1e,r1f. 2111:} ai: ighe iirne oI'avai1i:1g the Eezm, he had 4 Ciltiiil--'€};'€3{i a blank cheque to the original <:ona.p3.ai.r1a:m security and sttbeequelatiy, the said cheque has been misused by the Original eompiainazat. It was a.E-se his defence that I10 notice required under S€{j"§i(3--fi of the N.I.Aet was Served on him. In defence, the respondentwaeeuseci 'e;x::;1,_rneir1e'c1hitneelf as DW. 1 and also examined one moire "W._it11€S$_'§3S 'DW.;'2,_' V
5) After' hearing '1'ee11':r}.e{iV"
Magist.rate by the jtadgment"'uIi_{}ef'tetppeal '(iis1'fi1ssed the eomtfiiamt * theugh the eomp1a1r:1aI1t has proved debt and also issuance of the fer diSeh.a.1'ge of the said debt and as atse V the cheque, but has; failed to prove the eefviee '0fi__.r{<)tiee required to be issued under Section. 138~~ of the N.I.Aet. Corzsequentiy, the learned " A . .1\g'I2igi_$trate aequitted the ;'eep(mde11t--accused. ggrieveei by the said ju.dg_;m_ent, the eompiainant is; before this; Court: in this appeal.
6) I have heard Sri. Pramod Eiuikarni for S312.
UP. 1\IIuiiya, eounssei for the appeiiant and Sri. Parineeth 8. Channel for the respondent.~eomp?§i£;1ant:. I have perused the records.
7] As noticed supra; the 3ear.:1e.uc1"'w_1\xidgi.s{;;aiedo having regard to the CV/id€31'iC(-3:=__()I'1:--1"e€:{)i*d 1 a:'1d"a1e_o athe specific defence _putwforth' by the._ré«;spo;:;ci%::V;§::;,§c§':e1sea;"T. has recorded a finding .t;_}1e'.'c::.>.V}:j_:t'1:")}'aiV1frg1aI1t has satisfactorily pr0V€(V1"««£1';.€:A __debt due by the respondeiu'e'ndf~§es:;'éiH_ee of the cheque in quesiion for diseh.21r§e--.._V%of debt. For this purpose. the Eeai-.1?I1e__<f3 Mag:£e't'mf;.e.«11z1s also drawn presumption under
--of the N.I. Act. Having perused the dexfidenoebeoiia oral and do<':un1er3tary, I do not find any erl-Orin the said fmciing of this Eearlqed Magistraie that eompiairaant, has prmzed the ex'iste11o.e of the debt and is3ua.:1<:e of the (rheque for discharge of the said debt, There is no S€3£'iGL1S diSptJ1'£.<'3 that the cheque in {;ue3i:.io'm 'reEat:es:~; ie the aeeezyum: heid by the respondent, wi_t._h éihe 'E3z2:1k.{::.r amii E"E":e. é;?*::3;.ds-knee €211 r:::*.e:ii;;'d furiiifzéér ,2; . ,, is.» "
6
established that it bears the siggtaattlre of the respcahdent. There is aisso no ser1c)"L1s dissputte t}'}{€it the said cheque when presenteci for encashment (:21Hje"'t.() be dishoneured with the Bankers? end0rsen1e;11t-- .'.?\e_C;é§it_1i1t. Closed'. However, mere iSSi,1ElI".1C€ of £131.", ' dise11a.rg'e of the debt or liability itself would. not c:011stitute»'th_e c)ffe:1_ee puIT1IES3f1:<'tb1€ ::§I.neie_rh*.
Section under Section E88 offence under Section 138ef.:':hAe"._N;i;At:*t_'feeimprised of several Comp0ner_'1t's)f_.. 'ifheVi1npG:te1nt Component to Complete the offence' ._iS, _ ---£§f"*fi0tice by the drawee or the holderiin cit;-e_ Coursve of the Cheque, as the Case may be ' as eetguired by clause (b) of Section 138 of :_th__<3 'NJ?;"--;§_(:t.;T'VV'd-emanding the drawer of the cheque to pay t?fi'e 2;_'ine1;iht covered under the cheque, which is V AAFetur1*1'ed unpaid. Therefore, it is for the dmwee or the '._h'r:)i'der in due C()t,11'"S€ of the cheque, as the ease may be, "T113 prove that'. the notice as; required by Clause (13) of Seeé,i{:sn 3:38 at the 1\E.L.Aet. has, been isssued 21:15. 115,-; duh?"
eerw:-351 on the drzzwer. It is {>111}? tipcm 't'.1."£E": faiiure ef the 7' d1'awer {if iihe ditzquer to pay the an1mmt: c:<)"w:*red Ui.1{1d€1' the Cheqtlfi w'i.i.?{1i_r1 15 days from the date of recéeipt. of such titemand, the 0ff'<»:r1c:e under S€:ct.i0r3 138V_.~Q_f the N.I.Ac€ is ccamplete. The very abject of requirifig-iflggiice under S€C'I.i{)I1 138 (33) of the N.£_AC1:
opporiuniiy to the drawer Qfdihc. 9 amends to his deeds in not h0i'1r)Lirj_:1g thy: éheqxvgge.'-~.Mh'9.u the case on hand, ac(:e:>rCiir'1'gd, the find3ng':3 drkibcowfded by' the learned Magistrémcfi, thé"'(édrj1:pj1a.i'nant'"had failed to prove the': 031 the respondenbaccused.
The ieegtffled '1'»/.{_2ig.§iSt.t&té"«}i'as based this finding in the ligfjm Qf téofztfadibtoly evidence of PWs.1 81 2. thta ave';'mem':S made in the original crompiaiilant ,§er1't. Eegai :'10t1c:e dated O8-111..t"2'G*.'§2 to the accused Calling upon him to pay the Adamouilf within 15 delys of the said notice. It is further aireérred in the €:01::1pl2iint; t':ha'{. the said i<-sgal I1()i'.iCf3 wag
-:'-served on the aC(:'us<--:€i by {.1'1<: C0n1p1ainant pesrsonaliy cm {}8.1 i.2.{}Ci2 air, $31!: addrrszevfi sf thus: nazdriapiainant. as sstatezi in 'i:h<': <::a11:ae: 'trifle, '£'hus,-ad ac<:<::rc1i11;; E20 thés cdmpiami. 8 21\:e,rme:1t53, the stat.uto1y notice as requirecl by Section lf38(b) of the Act, was sewed cm. the respondent» accused in the reslderfilal heuse of the (:e)m13jl"aina1nt, situated at 82111211 Bagh, Mangalere. 1r10\ves.re1'_&; time the nlatter could reach for t1*ia1l_,»':"tVhe:f_fefig1lrlel complainant died. His son, Whig <:a:f:ie'-eh 1'epresentat.ive, ('3X21I11lIl€3ClV,--'£3,_$ PW'*._1,'=he1seV.e1_;ated ih hieg examination--in--chief as e'V:$V§:'ii;r_'ax;:te<:l Vain judgment under appeal that fe--';the2t" the legal notice datetl the:Wv:;1ccusecl personally on O8. 1 "['PK/V. 1) presence after calling the atteused tee-theixt residence. According to his evidence, ackhlehrledged the receipt of the legal notice :'r;:y «é1ft;iX:ia1:1g.A'.l'h£S eighamre and the date of receipt as O8..11,.,'2'O€u}'2A on the copy of the said legal notice- in the er0s$mexami112:tion P\rV.2_. the wife of the eiigiizazll :':{>I":1pla1iI1e11t. has sf;at:ed that the r10t:ice»E1x.P."?
"W218 served on the accused in Athena, Hespital where her l'"E£.'1f5§3£3..§1€§ ltgzri been 3=,r:1mit.t.er:l. 'l'h.e :'e:e'pcx;1dezr1t,~accused both iiuririg the eroesmexam'ir'1at:§£>'r1 of l3W'.l (fit 2 as well if ~ 9 as in his EXEi1'11iI1'c'l){.iOI'l*Elle-Chifflf has a.ssert.ed that the notice as per EX.P.7 has not been served on him and that the signatures found on Ex.P.7 emcl Ex.P.7§'o)--,j and also signature found on the letter marked ewe not his sig1'1a1.ures. In the light of s11e31__s}p~--s:cifiC dehizilt ' by the accused, the eont.radié;tior_1 i'a "the 'e_V'1de.1_f1'eeT_ PWS. 1 8: 2 with regard tertihe p'1asVr;e3seri£';ie'et notice assumes greater :_uI"f'V':aee:ordIng to PW.2, her husba;r1ti_.""Mhac--i:VA I:;ee1'1.v_»§{c1rnit.ted in Athena Hospjitai the date of service of 1'1ot.iCe-, the 'Said?1:1otjeea_e'o_uid not have been served on the aeeused i:1'V.pe'rVso1ui"----i_h' the house of the (jompiairlant. Simi'lVar1y,'Ri'f V_t.i1e."x9rigi:1é1:} compiainant was in the house, t3r1eEfe:__vV:9s ho""1*e.ason as to why the notice Could he 'sernfed Volisthe accused in Athena hospital. Either of one is'fa{ls.e}"-«.v .1-"does not say that when notice was served on a1e(:L1se;i;'ir3 the house PW.2 was ;)I"eser1t.. Similariy, PWQZ has not said t:hat when the l"1{)U{7f;'. was served on ' rfjhc E£{T'=:fL1.S'3€3"£i in Athena H(>spit:a§? PW} 'iJE:'21£~3~ also §z:e,sen':'.. '*§7he.:'efc}:'e, in my opiniora, the light of this glaririg it $1',-:33
---.»''m:-*'x;\« :; ---4-\--!._4'-,»:\. ¢.u=..w:'-«...~ fits-Wsagw-».{_:
:><:><::< xxx x>»<><W In the Eight of the above ar1swe;j elicit.-ed <'::"0ss--'»* examinatien of PVV'1' his evide':_1ce1"tehat'inhis Ex.P.7 was served on thet_2i'3_§:uset1. eannijtbe«-vbe1.ieved--_"
In the Eight of the $pecificV___tienia1.._»by..t§--;e:e_aggf-used, the Complainant also clid" get the disputed signeitu1'e' & P8 referred to the handw*rtti--n g.e:>{peVft_ comparison with the admitted s§'gi1attjre 0f the...aC_cused. Thus, there is no acceptable ' ;.eirideI1¢ee:V't.rQ "Show that the notice per EX.P.'7 was sefveci 0£i'j_th'e respondem:--acc:used. Therefore, 1' find no error the judgment of the learned Magistrate holding the offence pmaighable under Secttiorz 138 0f the EN.I. Act 1.3 not e::r:)r11pEet.e, thereforeg the accused cannot be held guilty far the said ofierxcre. in t.hi.s~3 Vi€'W of the mgttftiezx the ieazneti M21§§istr2:i.e is; justifieti in a<:quit'Ei11,g; the ((2%-i':':£;.-:€.4:@{.:fi€:£-h 1,}
8) I%a1v'i11g regard to the ciisciusssimas made above, 1 find no perversity or illegality in the judgment under appea}. Céliliflg for "i11t.e:1fferez1.c:e by 1;,h1'£~5 ..C0urt,. '}{'h€1fefGre, the appeal lacks; Ir1er1'£;. Hence, is d:i$missed.