Karnataka High Court
Rajashree Papers vs Pioneer Multiforms Pvt. Ltd. on 20 July, 2010
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY,'.-éO1OC'OO'%;-EH BEFORE TI-IE HON'BLE IVIRJUSTICE Ht:.LUJVAi3I'G,'R:AM'EsH' CRIMINAL REVISION PETiTi'O;~z Nb.z29;;}V2O_O9 Crl.RP.Nos. 2294/09, 2295/09, 22%-,1O'9--,O 22,97/09 Between: 1.
RAJASI-IREE PAPERS 1 A PARTNERSI;TIP,._F'1.R1\/i . :
REPBY1TSFPA;RT1NER' AMRUT S]O,'PU'KL1RAJj~-.JA1N'. A/A 5__1%__YE:AVR*S7:_,_ C «E R / O :KOP'PI.{{.AR C' 'OAD._'HUBL1""
D1ST1.,DHARW'AD_"E_ ~ ~ E ~ ...PETI'I'IONER (COMMON) (By Sri.; -RAMACHADJDRA MALI) "15IOCNI.§3Ei.E{---I\{i;1:.U'Vi.TIFO}?MS PVT. LTD. AWCO,_.__R'E(}'1STERED UNDER CO.ACT RECxD;«._OFFICE AT 6-7 BUSINESS PLAZA . GROUND FLOOR ,VO"PP HOTEL ROSEWOOD TARDEO MUMBAI -34 EREP BY ITS DiRI-ECTORS 33;."
--~ WWW m_rw.flWm_w% defence of the accused, complainant has lost the dealership with TNPL as such they have written letters._i:'toi'~~._the complainant to return back the cheques and also---- bankers to stop payment stating tha.t~th.ere L' balance and the accused are not enforceable debt as against l L
4. The Trial Court..V_pgnotiicedijljpthiatzg accused: failed to discharge the presurnptionl_.oil'thgcomplainant and what was the regasonlf'forlith-erri': stop payment -has not been eXpll'a_in-ed_,an'd »corifuict--e.c,l the accused. The learned l\/Iagistratie, also twice the cheque amount i.e. Rs.2 lakhs iicorripelnlsatiigrn to the complainant and also
-'C1Ij(3l€I'€"£,l~i'.f.EOvl.11'1d€I'gO'--'lI1j_plfiSOflH'3.€1'1t for 6 months against which this appeal' ipreferred.
Court referring to the judgment of ..ii_ij'_f.,.,4S'upreme~ in MR 2008 SC 1325, in the case of Krishna «..J"anacdh?ardhana Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, held that it is the complainant to discharge the burden and also opined U1 that evidence on record show that there is no outstanding debt. Specifically, the Appellate Court is of the viewglithat based on that presumption the conviction has which is erroneous and also referred ..to__the_--j'udgirielnt of the Krishna J anardhana Bhat.
6. In View of the finding _trialwC:ourt reason assigned by the trial Cou1'A.t._"iAs that§.accusVed_failedA to rebut the presumption. What is being presumption and stop payment Judiginent of Apex Court reported of Rangppa Vs. Mohan Apex Court oi legally recoverable debt is a matter of presuniptilonllliiin of a holder of the cheque that the same beer1=.i:ssuey~:1 for discharge of any debt or other l.'ia1bil:ity7_ thu.s'«.,:overwhelming View taken by the Krishna Janardliianla reported in 2008.
C 'l;he; Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial the ground that initial presumption is not available A "the complainant. Of course, in View of the change of W \ 6 position of law by the latest judgment of Supreme Court it is needless to say that initial presumption is in favoi;rr"'g"Q:f"..the complainant regarding legally enforceable debts; accused to explain satisfactory asfto":1on}exi.sten_ce"of the T legally enforceable debts by discvhargi'ngit~he = id
8. In the circumstances, of the Appellate Court is set remitted back to the Appellate Courtfo' dis:p'o's:e:of 'accordance with law, after hearing. is any scope for settlementvpvor_Vso'irie' the parties arrived at, it can ---Appellate Court.
/is-» fie.' s,w,{/, E E; G E Vmb