Tejraj K Jain vs Sri Vimal Ranka on 15 June, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Tejraj K Jain vs Sri Vimal Ranka on 15 June, 2010

E (.7:'i.A ] E54/(J7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARE\ZA'3.'AKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2010" 
BEFORE J u'

THE H0N'm.E MRJUSTICE A.s.PAc1j§1é®;;I{:::~ V' '% T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.15{3'::A C)I_?"'I:'gTD(3'f?'  "

BETWEEN

1. Tejra} K. Jain, A _  _
S/0. Late Kewal Chémd,  _  .<

Aged about 27 years';  '

2. Vikram K Jain, V '
S/o. Late"K'2;.~.yTa1 Chandf ._ 
Aged a_h-o'u.§: 2 2_._--.years,    T .

3. Kuv:_n_,j J"y9Vt1"1i1.;_If{.V Jaizif "

I)/o. Lat.ef.Ke¢;{a1 Cizaﬁd. _
Aged ._aboii'f V :8 'yeast,'  __ *

All éxrg-4'sonS"af"IQAat.é"}{Ex;ra1 Chand,
RepreS"ented_by GPA"Holder
__;sm:. Hexﬁalgtha Ii. Jain,

    Sémalatha K, Jain,

j " VW"/-9.' M  Chand,
  MAg'eti..ab«;n 't1»t"48 years,

 'residing at Mahaveer Engineers,
I€o.'1§_38, Kilari Road,
..  Sarncheti Mansion.
"vgﬁangalore.  APPELLANT / S

  fiﬁri. B.G. Ragashekar, Adv.)



l\J'

(':'i.:'7\ 1154/(2)7

AND

Sri Vimal Ranka,

Aged about 56 years.

Prop: Ranka Wire {P} Ltd.,
Plot No. 138.

Sipcot Industrial Complex,

Hosur.      it "

(Sri. S. Shankarappa Adv. for M/s.;"M.Ti._ANanaiahhﬁz 

This Criminal Appeal is'V"l'fi:i'ed untier'V".E',.;£cti:onm3'78(4) V

Cr.P.C by the advocate for,..th'e-_ appelia"nt._ against the
judgment dt.11.4.2007 'in.acc';'No1.3:;:.s9'0-/2001 onuthe ﬁle of
the XV Addl. C.M.M'," T--Bangf_»;ai.oreeV"t   Acquitting the
respondent/accused for theoffeIice--=.p./'1ifS;..138 of the N.I.

Act. " . 1 .

This '-eomiisg. onilfolr Hearing, this day, the Court, deli?-erect the' 'fof1lowi1;g:'*v,:

iiii H The appel3.ant'fs~Vliaje-..ee;i~;allenged the acquittal of the resporxdventhfor' .t}i--.eA'--eharge under Section 138 of the "V"«..{$€egvo_:t'ia1§-ﬁe 11A1strLiVrn'e--nt Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act' "trial held by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magiétrate',' eiliairxgalore, .. 2.V"--'£;he facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal ' . are'--z:s under: 9*':

<__*r1.A 1 £54,/()7 Lu'\f The appellant is the complainant and he submitted a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. stating thaththe accused borrowed a sum of Rs.5,50.000/- as h_a'n'di 27.10.2000 with an undertaking to repay gas.' the accused did not repay the amlgountuiora demand made by the complainant,i"gt.h'e accused' l'atér°cn7g issued a cheque dated 2'?.11.0'i(3*.:0.:'0 dravisini Bank and on presentation of:"i:~he itirsiriasvi returned with "an endorsementiw H _ 0 funds. The complainant a:i_ It was not complied .":Cjri1V'uC:.§u1'*r1istances, he ﬁled a complainitiiiiv u_WCei1rt for the abovesaid offences}. « The acensed appeared and after recording the plea anduiud_n'rir;§«.,._f;he pendency of the proceedings, the and his LRS were brought on record. The wife'""~--ofv--__'.th'.e" eompiainant was examined as PW.l. No _ii:iec1_1me"nts were admitted in evidence. The statement of e._ithVe'*aeicused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has lead any defense evidence. The Trial Ceuri: after"

-; C'1"I..--'\, 1 IE}-'4-/(.)7 hearing both the counsel and on appreciation of the material on record, acquitted the accused for the 'charge under Section 138 of the Act and aggrieved this appeal has been preferred.

4. I have heard the learned c"ou1L¥_sielV fd:~_;h§"a1$1{e11£i:.t and also the respondent. 'I»h_vé"~.4.point'- that myf' consideration is:

"Whether Apiaubd order acquitting the respVo_n.de.nt; fo"r§ charge under Sect'i'ts_1j" rgffthe. ..i_.s_:Vfi1lega1 and perverse " i " if jiiofwthexreicords of the Trial Court reveal «after ,--~of the complainant. his wife Smt.HVe;na1athaV'.fiI--.ed'--._a*aii affidavit by way of chief 'VV'«...3xa1-:riii1a_tiox3_ onxi'7~.~--};};.2005 and thereafter, part of the was recorded on the next day. On the reéiutést ofilxtiiel counsel for the complainant, the further igchief ertamination was adjourned. The perusal of the '*:i:depcsition does not reveai that the examination in chief ' was complete. It is relevant to note that when the evidence {'3 {"1'i..-"\ 1 1334/(')7 disposal in accordance with law. In the circumstances, I answer the point in affirmative and proceed to p_as_s".t_Vhe following:

The appeal is allowed. Thefpijudgrnjentp acquittal of the respondent for theleliarge ouridevr:Se};ti'on.'ﬁ 138 of the Act is set aside. Tlieilrriattper pack to the Trial Court to to the complainant to plead thereafter, to proceed on with't}§1oe'Vcase law. To avoid the delay, directed to appear before the Trial waiting for any summons. frorn--the':_i'~Clourlt..'As the matter is of the year 2{)01._t_he Trial C_o;urAt._ iisddirected to dispose of the case .-;_\l JV".,f:af1j#_,"':'p;;~.gfﬂ'I'§ib1y"l.V1'L'l1'i1'1 six months after receipt of the "=re'cor'ds."'~,_'Tl1eV"office is directed to send the records fertlivritliip ' _ ,\ . . Sa/E;

KFDGE

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Tejraj K Jain vs Sri Vimal Ranka on 15 June, 2010