Gulab Meerasab Koujalagi vs Rafiq Imam Mulla on 28 May, 2010

[Cites 6, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Gulab Meerasab Koujalagi vs Rafiq Imam Mulla on 28 May, 2010

Bench: Jawad Rahim

A" ~ _ VDi.st':.%E»e;I§;vaDm

IN THE HIGH COURT DE :s:AI<NAIfAAz<A«.   E
CIRCUIT BENCH AT i}.H11RW£\'D'V_A 

DATED THIS THE 23¥¥?""DAY oE.M'A\?é, 20,16 S
BEI'-'0'RvE  " .. '2

CRIHENHAQN'2eEs*IsE9é%%%Eswa23%E2a'so9

BETWEEN: E

Shri Guiab Meerajisab~KoDja~iag«i  
Age: Major, "--occ'_;°_A_g:~'v! :8; Business. ' 
R/0. Shir;;;aon"\z:'I'Ia--ge, 'T'f;sl_: '"C.h:i;kD'di 
Dist: Bgjlgauﬁs 's.;;., V \'  * . 
 E'   I PETITIONER
(By Sri. M. B."?.('Dni',I AdI.\{.'}..,_ ' -
AND: ' ' I ' * "  

1. Shri REi'fiq.:VIrné*m M uffa
Vﬁésgé; Major','----Oq:__;A'Service
 R/D"; Ekamba, Tq: Chikkodi

 RESPONDENT

_CR:L;,}.;2;i$ FILED Li/S397 (I) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF COURT CONVICTION SENTENCE DATED 25.6.2007 IN SIC:

ENQ.lS5/O3 PASSED BY ADDL. JMFC CHIKKODI, AND W,."CQ§'\3FIRME3 BY HON'BLE APPELLANT COURT I ADDL.

"ESESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM IN APPEAL NQ152/O7 DATED 193.2009, AND PETITIONER ACQUIT.

. W. at THIS REVISION i:>ETtrioN;~(foI¢i.t_i\iité"'- ADMISSION THIS DAY,_ THE, 'CVOURT _'v_t' MvADE':.' FOLLOWING:

The convicted against the judgment in d-2:"tvet§.[*\1.:j;._§~.03.2009 on the file of I Acidi';i,S§eSs:i=Aonsj confirming the judgment VCi_§cv'No.155/03 on the file of Chikodi convicting him for the" under Section 138 of Negotiahiealnstru_m'ents"~7iAct (hereinafter called as 'the Act' forgshort) and the consequent Sentences. is posted for admission after notice to the * re'Sipond'e'ntVA'n/ho is duiy represented. a Heard the learned Counsei for both the Sides and S;§e'iﬁused the records in Suppiementation to their igcontentionsg / X; '\,';2/ xx"

4. The genesis of this petition is traAj::eahiee:§te 4_ compiaint filed under Sectio_n~»~.2<QO respondent seeking prosecution.ef1'_th~e peti'tipr:e}:'p;{'ithe accusation that he had cheqde.Nc'§v%i;'3;}5.Q2.«»3datedV:l' 19.11.2001 for Rs.1,25,00Qg_i_}"':-in -respect:_pl' the account maintained by him'.AvmTl7€i-we ._i3I'esentation was dishonoured on of funds. The statutory as envisaged in clause (b3 Belt was not complied.

v7--.$."The__'was taken by the learned jurisdicti"e.n.al.V and process was issued in red-povnise to 'which___the petitioner entered appearance and » 1Co_ntestepd.:"The petitioner/accused vehemently denied the ~.a'lecusati"_c_m_ complaint that he had failed to pay the arhouhit. df"V'Rs.1,25,OOO/~ to the complainant or that he was A. leEableV"ipr the said amount. He had in his defence urged it 'A-that the respondent/complainant had offered te seii unto "him a Tempe Trax vehicle for Rs.1,25,1O0O/~ subject to certain cenditiens, The respondent,/complainant 53/ "\ committed breach of the conditiioms-.of safe and the vehicle was not said t'oiA~E"iin"{;~_ 'Th'er:ei5o":e:i1vihe was not iiabie to pa'yi__ any x to..3 respondent/complainant mucih""-fess.' Rs,i',2:S',t)OO:;/» covered under the cheque. yi~.i.e a|so"'ur_ged"»e.that the cheque was blank which was fiiiediéin ,_i3'ythisfres'pohoent/compiainant.

5. Tie ttiaii. 'aciciept the defence, but accepted and convicted the petit:r_on'eVr'_' 138 of N.I.Act. and sentenced nin2.VVVtoAI.ijVp.:§y--._:fj'h«ew~"of Rs.1,30,000/- and in default to underﬁc V_:irnp'r*--isohrVn'ent for a period of four months. A;:ic_:j'ri¢;>-uedA.by Vi't}"'i'1'e'Vwas in Criminal appeal No.152/2007 plea of innocence, which the Appeiiate .'Co'urt Thus, the concurrent finding of two Courts agai.nst:_him was questioned in this revision.

7. The iearned Counsei for the petitioner has taken ..Eme through the evidence on record in support of the defence of the accused and wouid contend that the complainant had not revealed the nature of transaV_t:t:i'o.n in relation to which, the alieged cheque was he would contend that as the transaetionwasirjzv ,reE:avtE.on._ the vehicle, since the vehicle was notes:ald<to~.the'a%:€.u§sé--é_d, he was not liable for paymeintaeef an'yl..a'n1ount." IHe,drew attention to the sworn the eornplaflnant and also his cross~examivn'ati'o_n,'i.ﬁ§ns.:_g»§rhhi'c't;vi'the'complainant has given two different out that the complaina.nt3._.ytias';g__uiIto oi-.7. material facts and also knowing well that such :'state.Arnen"ts«l._toVhis,i_l§n.Qwledge and belief was false. He thereforeLseeksvéseittlngfiasiilde of the finding recorded by bot.§fl'th.ese4.VCZouVrts'l ' '§{.Inl"«.negation of what is urged by the learned petitioner! Srl Me-led, the learned Counsel for" the-:'res1'pondent would contend that the complainant llhad plaeed before the Court all facts in its nakedness. He ihaaroi revealed in his complaint issuance of the cheque by if" "the accused whéch cheque on presentation was 3 W' (ti dishonoured. He had established before the triVsi..4'_:Court that despite issuance of the statutory {iOtiCe',§v_iE§.CCtiV'?$Vii<3i:(:i:l. i-tad failed to comply with generating» cause'v~--ofi'a'cti'on prosecute him for offences under In short,his contention i1's=--..he was reqtii'r*.ed..,_VVto_.3 oiniyiii» establish:

i. Issuance ofiiiihe'l.cheqVtie~-_b*;i:th.e accused ii. Its dishonotir, iarid: V' V' _ V iii. §\lo'n__comt5_liahce of.tii'e_i~.stattfitory notice was not obliged or detailed complaint disclosing the natureof' tra'nis.aeti'o»n"---.reia'ting to which the cheque was issisech He wa'sinoti-reouired to make detail averments as to" thEe'ciV'rcumstav'n'ces in which the cheque was issued. VEeei<ti.r§'--i.icitactiehai st; ori: frem the decisieh in the case of 9 ., . .

and another vs' Medchl Chem/'ca/'s and is pnafriza' (P) Ltd. and Another. reported in 2002 (1) scc A' he submits that in similar circumstances, the Aeex .I§Coort disapproved requiring the complainant to make detail statement is the complaint about the existence and N3 subsistence of debt or iegai liability. Aiternati§(ei;y~,.V_ he submits that presumption under Section has to be raised shifting the burden rebut the presumption. Regardtng:1-dissrerpanth"-statie._me:nts one in sworn statement' and a*notherVthUe _f:ro%ss.{; examination, he submits theetatebnents are same. The complvaiinaint'é._haj_sino't-minaade any different statement in his cross«~.e>tam-in'ati'on_ Vtnan. what is stated under swo4rrZ,Vstarte_merit. _V co'ni~tenti'oén- of "b'o't'h sides has received my serious 'consi.dVerr"aitiVon..ii'-._A.t the outset, it needs to be affirmath/e.iy"reVcord~ed'~~-that in the complaint filed by the compgiapinant, net.-a~s'mereiy mentioned about the issuance ' accused; its date; its number and the i§s.1,25§.OOO/--. The transaction in reiation to whicbiiit was issued has not been even indicated. In the v.conapiaint there is no mention as to whether the cheque was issued towards ioan transaction; business transaction or in reiation to saie of any property or debt or iegai liability. In short, there is no averment even to4.t,he,_:'effect that the cheque was issued for a vaiuabie consideiira-ti_oii._.of Rs.1,25,000/-. On his own, the respondentibeene miser in disciosing the facts giving ri'se:'to'=.ca'i.:s'e oi'facti::on. A cryptic brief statement is muadeioniixy aboVu'tA»..f{.gq.eV it's date and amount. the «respondent has disciosed as to :vi'.w'a'g.UTentitied to receive Rs. 1 ,25,000/-,.~i.fvso, transaction.

10.? from the records that on c'o«mpi'aVint, it is the jurisdictional Magistrfate ,.recording the sworn statement, questioned. him,' sworn statement, for the first has revea-3-ed that there was transaction between ands "respondent reiating to the saie of vehicle, the petitioner issued the impugned cheque. By such statement, he made the iearned jurisdictional 5P":ia'tj,_.istrate to beiieve that he was entitied to get V',Rs,1,Z5,OO0/~ as sales consideration for the vehicle. Accepting that statement, process was issued against the '~M_%__«:.\« '';;';,i "K igww 9 accused. In reseonse to the process, the pe.t'iiti'or're'r/V' accused appeared and put up a"sp'ecific'..AdefeAnce_ Vthat the ' respondent having agreed to hlérn.yA.the«. received the cheque for=...liEa.,y1,2S",QDG,f:y.'*5 not complete the transaction. Iet--E-sifavlleged byﬂthe. accused that the respondent/comp"l"ainant__h§ac3 the contract of sale by his _o'w_n acts' - the cheque unenforceahiege. 'the evidence tendered by nroducing the cheque, yr=.<§i-me and the acknowledgement, the accusedhas th'orVoitrgh4l'y--.:'cro'ss--examined him. In the cross- examinatiolni-»hehas put on a volte--face and made a .ca'tegZ:¥'rical~_denialwthat there was any transaction relating ' to sale« lot" Temp Track. By such statement, the ll'-respoxnden-t/Aeolmplainant lead the Court to believe that there "i}yas"ho transaction relating to sale of the vehicle and it *that the accused was liable to pay the amount in some ether transaction.

11. The learned triai Judge acceptedﬁthelade'n'la.l'_"'_'iry,, cross-examination as defeating the"d--efen7_<;e _,a'n"dUupheld the ' contention of the complainant"«thatl"he llyy.~_;is.. recover Rs.1,25,OOO/2 I't..l:5.ut~~..V_matter__ efulre:g'ret"*"that the' learned trial 3udge failed to....e><arbi_ne as"t.oyyw.hether the compiainant had estab-li:lshedy_--{.,' j, '4 l i. firstly, che'quefv:;in. relation to any lelgyali yli'abilii:y_y "

ii. second'-l.yk, lei;-eyri'i.f':Asuch'~a cheque was issued in

-------- 0-ftanyil d-e.b.t~'Vor legal liability, whether Vsu'.r,h.._vl4egai«.liab_iIity or debt was subsisting as on " ythe,_date tit"-w'.a's""presented for encashment. _ Ignlm.-in'g tif.._e 'v_ita~l"uissue, that was confronting for a uvy_theAA"lea.m.ed trial Judge scoped the figure on N.I. Act and went astray to hold that .*issuanCe73§>f's:=.eheque by the accused was admitted, it's dishonout' is proved and non-compliance of statutory rviotice" is alse proved by the complainant. Hence the Vatcjused was guilty. Even the Appellate Court has adopted v-l)1t;.';;«~ ~< \. aw"

' §,,,V,F NM w' ' the same approach resulting in the conx:lctioni_i'~.o'f~.,_the accused.

12. I am satisfied that the conyilctionfrecoird-e'dby ii' the trial Court and confirmed Apbe_ilAatve'~ wholly unsustainable for the'fol'io,winc] i In an action Un'Q.gi' Seict'i'otd.:'_1§'8...gf N.I.";'-xctv, the basic ingredient to be established"l'si----:'V i. :me..;chequ_e beie'n'.j_'i._<5slu'edl in relation to any '-oriin part of the existing debt ieqaliiiarbiiliivr,[ti ii. i"'t.h_.e for consideration, V"i.ii." . of presentation, the debt or allege": .liabiiit§..'t'was subsisting, iv: denilavll the accused to make good the VV,amouVn't"«covered in the cheque within the statutory period.

_Ti*:evl'4i'.v'eiridence disclosed, the complainant has not nreveiavletl the nature of transaction, whether the cheque '¥,Kw_aS' issued for consideration and as to whether it was _;towards the debt or legal liability is conspicuous by its absence in the complaint. The learned Counsei made 2 t Kg' effort to seek support from the decision of__t:he referred to above. But I must oV.bs»ei*ve..Vwha-'t' it that unlike in civil proceedingsV,n__th'eV_.corripiai'nantV required to make detail ave--tifi'i'ent inhis'wv.co:nsiap,l4aVint'V'abodt the nature of trahsazttion, ga'i:iotiVit':the_._existence"'Eof debt or legal liability in vievii4"oi*j"ceirt.§ai:i'1 ﬁp'r:esalmptions under the Negotiable instr.i,J_me;nts:'lvaftetlrendition of this decision,§.t'lie -in i.ts::.'sobVs'eguent decision in the case " has spelt out the mandate of 'compelling the complainant to specifica.lly-establish:.":i'ssoa'.nce of cheque towards full or pagjt "di.schargeV_Vof1th'é liability and also to specifically plead and p%lo2ize*~tghat themdebt or legal liability was still subsisting fv\.ihei;vl:V':'th'eiVf'jch~'eque was enforced. Categoricaliy, the stilbseiquelnwtlldecision which was rendered on 22,06.2005 _ tepolrvtetl in AIR 2008 SC 1325, has spelled out the right 'toot:-'rse. In fact, now the position is well settled that the __5complainant has no escape, but to establish by acceptable p%'OOf that -~ E. the cheque impugne_d...was infrei'ati'_on"to'_'lawful"» transaction and for considerfiation,._' i ii. it created a debtor leégal'iiabiiity,..".iu " " V iii. the debt or ie§;a.i,:l'iapbiIitti w.as._st_lbVsiVste'd'bias on the date of its presen.tati_on. hi * The complainaa<1_t"jp'-therefore"~--r;a.lnh.o_t feel safe by his vague cryptie compl_a,int.. nature of transaction' on proof is shown to be also material to note that the virtually misconceived litigati'on:.'-- he had not disclosed the nature of"tra_nsauCtioi'2_ thereby putting the accused in a very vi-u_i'i'1e:rf-abieu posiltiorrbecause he could not have known the V=n:a"tur'e.:_:'lofDetridence he could lead. Undoubtedly, ttolgnizance ill/as taken on the basis of the sworn statement and ..on:_iyV the averments in the complaint. The learned Alvjlutisdictional Magistrate was required to have called upon lithe complainant to lead evidence before charge as is H required under Section 244 of Cr.PtC, which the learned Magistrate did not do. Had the learned Magistrate called ax,' V""-., ,, :3 /ll*5l'7;

2 upon the complement to lead the evidence beifore :t"l?:e%"»._ charge, the accused would have knowr:...t_h'eV 'natureV'o«f.. material evidence, the complainant proposes'_to_ procluccej in the trial Court, He has riot donelso. Eo7r.cvl'arlty} 'it necessary to refer to Secotifon 244"..Vof~f{:r..'lij.C: which envisages:

"1) When, in instituted otberx/ris.:e:' t/janiloni' . the accused appears Vlamﬂiagistrate, the Mag€*istrafeV. tproceerdl to hear the take evidence as may '.../be" ln of the prosecution. "

'rhererorer, s'céAct.i{5n;_"221,4 of Cr.P.C makes it clear that Inga " case .Vir:st:itu1ted' otherwise than on a police report, of,_a private complaint is required to call upon the Vcprnl'p-Eaéevaht;-te~~ lead evidence before charge. 245 further makes it clear that:

*~ _'l';z'::', upon taking of evidence referred to in éection 244 the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded that no case against the accused has been made eut which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, Magistrate sha/I discharge him, Incidentally, it is to be mentioned."theft:pro*v§is--ior:__of»S Section 244 and 245 are mandatorygiL§ea'd.i_.n-gj"of'egzei._deAnf:e before charge is therefore urra\_(oidai>.le'. This"is«jb.eVcause; a case instituted on a police:V!4_l:re,o_or.t( a"li"rnatﬁeriafi collected during investigation form of charge sheet which wiii be under Section 207 of _i2'V.'"ji_"';'.'E'"i'tiVe:"complaint all that will be avai_lab'leliislioxnlti statement of some of the w_itnes'se-3.giNhenl_t"w!..agistrate takes cognizance. It is for this "reaison';-- requires that before charge is frjained, com'piilaViVn'ant: must lead evidence before the charge .A and g'rodLJc'eVall documents and evidence that he intends to .useda'ga'i~vnstV~l.:;'th.e accused to establish the charge. This is the rrhiodcil by which material is collected in a private "V * co.h1ol'aint and which is required to be furnished to the ﬂaccjused to mould his defence in further trial. The stage "Sunder Section 244 is before charge; that is evidence to he 16 recorded before charge which is analogous or_5}i_mii'a.rj'g'*td the exercise that the InvestigatingmQfficer*"Lm-derta»l<es receipt of a report under Section:=.154_-of:Cr;ri?:C'."'-lhteirefereé, the material produced undeir-Section 2.44 ltrisedi» material that is collected durvingtmyestig-atVio'r'i and like the final report under twolustages have been ignored by consequent to which the had to on the basis of complaint. not disclosed the natureof time, he gave a sworn statement was not furnished to the accused.'i'I.n cross~exa'm~i'nation during the triai, he further sl,;*p3';)re_sseVd the«....__t_ransaction and did not reveal in ' ,ef><aVrr1éna~*.:i'o.nl¥in_-chief that cheque was issued in relation to "'sai*e' o.f'Vrr;:oto.r"vvehicle. Adding to it, he went one step furth..e'r_in'ﬁmaking categoric denial 'when such evidences were confronted. Since two statements were made by the "'V.complainant, or: oath, we have to examine whether the statements are similar or are contradicting. It is.4jthce_refQre necessary to extract the same.

Sworn Statement of the co»mplai.h'éiﬁt:§'.';v» "a:>'c'o':'3 eacf./a»¢efa.'»3c€ wéedodawdaajcﬂo 11* asawasamig weed: e=c5i.e¢e33¢{>?S -53./ao¢9.:2'5,Q a5-ca sabacecgaﬁao cacﬁuavaiséczfa a2';-$??e. :3./2-'>;.._V_9§'2*5,n"k,=o0-;V-ﬂag 'HfH>?<s5 53553 535:??? 45533053.. 9-9-249-:***' VV &/a£§d:e>§a3'o ec5.éc4;;~2x.~§§:;<>'\ A3223 :j_;-\s;,:>;%' '*-- ' wag;-bees» eawazﬁ 550:-5:5 c?J'Z355§'_Hs'3_3%,,€'§'37s"2: dozab am? 3-.§§odJas;f« escape}-:~aa :$;:~ae§é:s'*:};;.j_~~. ®<:;'i£:¢o3:a"a5 e4e'o-g édaii 3./a$,§d>:va§c5o we.-.»;*;:aV " was $.@s'c'> &/acaa Wesduec¢s3a*a osaaagcsc 5552» csaraoais :4=~22-2902 dad:

&ras§d::j¢a3o F5655? afi/acs3Wa3g _: 3VCv3'3E?g:5€v§.)-'C§J%,cT9o ai/ac&3¢c'3»w abcc'? @033 afT¢x'c'<;? V da,?ci$ """ " 'vemvesm mu-a2cr5: :o"r3cd>&esj<:>.2 A ";§;§3a<j,§5<2:cfL>a%aﬁoc5: aacfcsziasgvﬁo ﬁxacsévw 6./asgcie mas V' swat? O3J'<')3jIC3(' was §./3$.§C5&£§c'3c§e '$5./9Ve33¢'s§.? ea; ﬁedawarﬁ aJ2>a"o~:i>c.2 555.9 sea? good: £c<z'3 " _s;~;s§:a;a-_a;-so we wee eggs; ssegoﬂcﬁqif 5m*z»d:av'c%c'32caaz3 <2zé.za¢=,255:2' asaéodocg was adagécgaﬁoaia 55535 a§af;d.:; oﬁocdadsfkﬁbdaagﬁg add a,'i:«d/ecafatigi 5.23592 é/esgdaaﬂo S359': s§s-.:a>';; wedge wgoacﬁddz éixaag daz.'»'.ra4'§cTL; w'aa::3.>ze'@<'€>d>€¢:l'% sytﬁ/9§':~.3>3&f3 éeizoimid c'33;e¢é5¢55a:i:; am I9 20 mac wzwafzﬁ aiaocti §o"s<1>?7\%9a'5.g'. "a=;:e.:;s¢L-"

wa5&£>'ad$.*g 5&5: @é,5¢53€ :s'>'r?zda§.«a<_:;§z:§;*;:§ «::9<;>c35 ' . <'=9&/.«>~;'a$35:$.3 425 2.2:; avg maa; f a,3c>'§>5c'3 €5c:';;cg' eaozdcf aféoﬁvcgo *c:s?:::5c._ A' cad/a¢e3$<©'& zeégdaa' a&a$w$3 ' __ V "é:Li:a6 mm 532336 csaaacsgérwa c~2.c.>':asa _c§_wa<:_é3:: 19- 222-200: dew: " o"u";/'3'¢@§'€§7°' wﬁodocg a_3U%c5 wcgsg: 'V'C'%'O('§vC'3V: 5§5CgE)yQ%;'?bvA :",¢:.p&«@§'«:f2C§F~i3 3:9: Saga g-,se»;&a,v?c§c;.:;_ ai>d.>.:§oS./acé zmamig h c.:i:§§§;:§ca¢§o;$ "';é;$<:»* aazgaxaoacgcai @oc5d'._w'<E'3_ cﬁcgo ' T wag moan wacﬁc q%Ucg.cSOdJcfg9 aim; «vac: zjaiaaav aa'.§Z--.'?Q, w:-ago:-;'--'-a c§:$;a:g:é'--.:aé%}occwa;: a'&/avescawcg cad/9¢e33a5J 5555?? 2331; «ﬂeas; c-903?: daiwdef 5:27:-aécg? zgaoccicf we " sea cad.@cu3:o'cT.i> 55: weapon: om: ataaiaag a-swag 52-aim c-aé/«>(':3:a'a>'o doaaa' "sz.,»';£':1e~.=>_q*.%:;"*;-;-'J-Q-)*rs 555.; «me; c-2033 mmzdas aﬁsaécg @0536 '4; $5 sgédsaaf a5&; gas? :5 ems c'c'd.:.:z~>d> aisaédo.-If wag warm £5563 oat:-2:5 &"wg§dz:f<:;_§ 22:3 @053: §a'$9«:f agféff magoairu sag <':9C3\.«@$'r3és"5 ﬁmggddcg "$2539: c-2.2%? 30:32 §./&s.§@:€ @9533 afaéodascagci, es&ra¢e£i»:e='a>'& 53%.:-':3' 53a:ao5: 9- 2+2*om dociv osfagoaaazrﬁcgdaaz' ioésb; £39556'? zcilzqsgaj ?:?-00 5302353 53053.: 538.; <>3'§'§C3§E3a was eéégdg gﬁaaoés :- 20 22-295: cam aﬁcwvsdsasga 5JcgO3T3""?5¢g§32Cs§o ¢é>;2;;«'jVa§§%;»:;._' w'r3é3¢e§d:a5'a;§ eaagoarf acgazcs ax; 'cmag T 3:03.; 5117:; ecu-:5 5:559; _;a.::::>c"asa;w--w'¢---aqz:>;;a¢§jzs2 ' ;€>a32 c-agvg éﬁasaoés 7-12--2'om1 555$ c0cé3=<3.33's3;;:_c'So esa; éafjg' deg afaixecda mama Vsaagaasg "a;;az9;c:2e_ 5212:1233 (szss 53355:) 3./Va;-sctacg, cV{Q_c3::3_V 55., f' warm mg ages' .af.>¢§'5 'j;>;;;; Lvéwtf R359

5.. Z: _V '9§2.+2é&.; ¢3a3? aﬁéaig c'da©'r5' ~¢;§::'25:$.z.¢:; 'T,-Q¢c%{2:fi-1995553, 'e-<:oo:5¢'g.;wV~-- géaaia aocame aa'cd<5¢ em g:ir$é3¢éd€a5é>é'.*'5:"'-. daaécg @0536 Fféiodacga ' as V ;v,%ac:;a'ée;:§"e$éa3c €9:,e§,€?JC§§'£ eoozcscs éﬁbodocgo sag; c4--éeU';»%Va§:7i..rao.:3"- 5:55:35 cﬁaiaoés 24-22-2002 dozfo scam g;:§s.e;;aa¢:>:ﬁ"" ».-:?...:,>.r..-s:2w.> <»'>¢'c%d7és'6'»5'o misc ms-ssm .,e:3x«>s*~g$é;3§3 @5203: 24-92-2001 doab ajwsgdogcﬂo 555; 11$ csdrfzv' awﬁnafi a':vw'5:i; oﬁoédsﬁafefcéocir @0555 am, 6155: EX/as'é3<'c?2c'L'c2 7-c'3a5?3€' wzs wee .. égaseafafcéowa ssmsssgca" esoaicf wag wag s'\'§ﬁ$'€3§'<§'>53Q maria '.%;§:.,~=as,:«* av'-aé€e>5a;e'? e*:i@§'a'5>3s~3f3 mesa mac; om: aadmagﬁ cacﬁ£:'I4'e.€*33g0?9 afadr? 235.; ¢3§'@€3 mm 59%.: mag, sdxaceﬁécﬁ zdzzeisﬁ osbaai wgafwad ":93; 6-3039 ciedavazdaﬁ a5L:*a@<'.; was $59 c-ﬁcixavéicﬁedé min &3§:;:'c3 egagswaaa «meg 5535.; ::i>ci>a;"§Qi«sc6'3 2,3334% em;-5 ma &.>i><s5._3 gsdaa ca:->a>oo aiaaédgvcﬁ @0552? ﬁéoiacgo"

:5 *' if

ix) The simple reading of these two state_n?i:entsV_'Vjieaxres'_ no scope for doubt that the compiainant _i's'a;~:~;- 'gViven'=~ different versions. It is immateriai ct}; whiten'-xkeraongvais true or false. But the factre:_nains",._o'n oathiv-heeyiyhas '}j;,ii{/enif two statements which are co»n_.ti'adicto"i'*,x_ 'ta-V-ianether and was intended to be used in'd.judi~C;iaI"proceediiingys, against the accused. Since two -i-state'rnVen.tstV"afrei 'made which are contradictory', «and §;sta:te'ment~.i.t"_--on 'vovath in judicial proceedings "_receii;abi.e--..___"as "7'e\?i_'de_nce, it accounts to undouib't'ed.l§?"yperjimx. of'Fenc'e of perjury is described in the'~IPC as fo'iiofws:»a, "Section 1! Fabricating false evidence:

'-vi/i{hoeav'e,1f 'causes any circumstance to exist or V rnaices an')/fa*i'se entry in any book or record,

--o_;'ei'eictro_nic record or makes any document or « 7e/e'::.tror§ic' record containing a fafse statement, inten.%:ling that such circumstances, false entry " er:-fa/se statement may appear in evidence in a A judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a ,eub!;'c servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or raise statement, so appearing in "xx \\ via' ' ' .

M» ». \/vQ/ Z3 fabricatinQ faise evidence arId.....Section""=--.:i_9,3"=: whs=f;ih""

prescribes the punishment.

13. On tentative examinationgi' amt_sa't!sfie'd:"'that.'V the statement appearing Vin.._rt~hpe siNo__rn,stat'e-ment": and"

evidence is totally at varianee--~anid. 'St-.!_(.2h \.iatia.nce§ is to the knowledge of the As'.'[:e'a_rned triai judge ought to have4_e'>:amine'dV' statement as the same jyvais The iearned trial judge_"'i1.a:'s exercise of jurisdiction confer-vifed, on'him4'*to"e§€am'ine such issues and to take appropriate action.'f'Ei»_nee"'such evidence has been given in trail;'beforextheV'iViagi.strate who was competent to initiate pVro'secLitio'riA.iagainstmthe respondent/complainant for false Ie~.ridenc'e.__asf~.in.dicated in provisions referred to above. ODyiousEx,{,i'4j'..--siuch statements were intended to be used again's,t__Athe petitioner and in fact used and the accused has ioeery sentenced to imprisonment.

14. Therefore, having notiiced._that':'the'VV had faiied to establish ingredients-of iS_'ectio'i*s~.1_"3§ and the statements given i§y"'-hggim d'eV:Oc!.I'_€(LLi§:i5:._'fi'~i.i.1T?':'i Notf' oniy the action by hirnunder $gect:i_on_v_138."of.i_i$i._.I./§.t:t against the petitioner fails, bu-tine except to face the charge for t~endeI'§n'§'-tﬁiséi"§vid'et:_C'éL'i{f'$ince action has to be taken Cvourzt _v3ih~icti"'s'uch statements were made, I pass t<hVetfoIViowing_'order: V

-------- 3. 'rzg, _Q_F_{DER*' :':'i_'he «peti~t.ion_p"iisg"algi"ovvi/ed-i. The impugned judgment passed 'ir1.gC;iCv 'No;i"S'5/tiﬁiidated 25.06.2007 convicting the petitioner for"'ofifences under Section 138 of NJ. Act is set 35ti'5€- E"A'.i?.C5iT'::_equentiy, the judgment in Cri.A.No.152/2007 1 is aiso set aside. The Addi. Civii Judge, J.AiVi««cF.<§_',' 'C,hfi"i<i<odi is directed to take on fiie C.C.i\io,:i55/O3 and ..examine the sworn statement and the evidence iteifidered by the compiainant and to forward the report for his prosecution in accordance with iaw for initiating prosecution against the cornpiainant for the offence it 7:3 indicated in course of his order or any oifﬁér'5off:e'r:r£§'.'_ Report in that regard shall be submitted----».fdj..ﬁh~js:§ within two weeks from the dateﬁof 'c'hde"vt;o__{_oA\;go:f this order. The amount, if=an__y inV'd.¢p'osit Court is ordered to be refundé%d~~.._V"%' _ gab/_ V' .

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court