Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Nandi Greens Agro Farms And ... vs Sri.K.S.Jagannathan on 26 August, 2016

Author: Anand Byrareddy

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

                               1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                     BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016

                         BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.226 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

Sri. Nandi Greens Agro Farms
And Developers (Private) Limited,
No.77, Serpentine Road,
Bengaluru - 560 020.
Represented by its Director,
Sri. Manohar Bharathi.
                                    ...APPELLANT
(By Shri S.N.Bhat, Advocate)

AND:

Sri. K.S.Jagannathan,
Jagan Associates,
No.137, 9th Cross,
Margosa Road,
Malleswaram,
Bengaluru - 560 003.
                                    ...RESPONDENT
                                  2




      This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the
code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the
appellant praying to set aside the judgment dated 17.1.2015,
passed by the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru, in C.C.No.4663/2014 - acquitting the
respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section
138 of N.I. Act.

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

                          JUDGMENT

The appellant was the complainant before the court below alleging offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. It transpires that there was a transaction of the year 2008 and a cheque had been issued by the respondent - accused, in discharge of the liability, in the year 2013.

3. It is apparent that if any money was to be recovered under the transaction of the year 2008, time to recover the same would have expired in the year 2011 and any acknowledgement of such debt beyond that period would not also save the limitation period. Therefore, the court below having held that 3 there was no legally enforceable liability, may be in order. There is no merit in this appeal. The same is rejected.

The application I.A.1/2015 does not merit consideration and is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE KS