Channappa vs Thimmaiah on 23 May, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Channappa vs Thimmaiah on 23 May, 2012

Bench: V.Jagannathan

 v .52.  $'::?E;;E\!?{:%f?E«$§éi  EEARS.

gfim

EN '§'HE EKEH cezjm" QF §EiﬁRNATAE{A .33 Bz3:NGg1LOR§
Dated me 23rd day of May 2&2 
:BEFQRE:  ._u
HQNBLE) MRJUSTICE: xf.JAGANNATI_~QQ§f'  '   "' 
CRL.R.P.No.1888 ,1 2006    ' 

BETWEEN:

CHANNAPPA,    
3/0 H SIDDAIAH AGED ABoUfr'-~45 YE'ARs, _ '  
KG KOPPAL, MYSOREE,    

A' Q .1 '?ET:T1oNER

{By SR1 KRI$HNAMURTi-ff :3' 

AND: V    

  
S/O THIMMALAH. ;.., .

(SINCEZVVDECEAZSED 31;:-.'{.: ':3? H18 LE3}

; m«gm  
50 Ymasv, ' _ .. ~ _ 
33*,/0 LATE ?H'IME&'LA}§5;H.

 "  :23 YEARS.

4% g T$:vi'j:f 133%?
 3%-..YE;;"ﬁ?S9 WIS  §SE?§&§
:3/f L:§.TE THEMMARB,
A.  R52: 35, :1 SRQSS,
_ "~§A$:%1?€S%§§'sL%RAE\§A§é_R%§
'-- i%!f'fSC3RE,

SMT Kﬂiﬁ,
2% YEAERS. E19'! ﬁ SANTHQSH ($33 Kijﬁiiﬁﬁy
§jQ L5%'§'E T§iEEX§Evi%i*%}§,



Ex.)

Rf}: ?8?I H CRQSS.
GANGA ROAD, KUYEMPUNAGAR§L
MYSQRE323.

{AMENDED AS PER COURT
ORDER DATED 10.12.2009}

{By SRI M B NARGUND, ADV.)

 RE;.§jI50NIj'I§N* H * ._

THIS CRLRP FILED I:I/5 3§'?v R/W_.2IL:_'}:1 _CR_:§P.uC. 

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE TI-LE1 JUI§€}MEN'1' DATED :_2VIé.2o06
PASSED BY THE  R0,,------«  ﬂ1VI":'-SQEEQE, IN
CRL.AINO.91/2006, I>AI§9II,$;I APPEAL 8:
MODIFYING IN PART IjI~IIé:  CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE:ID*_ATE{fI) 21>"/:'_1j:e¥V:<:3e4':.3'NOAaG>r€*?:"'P.<'X:S'I:s§'#$E':rD BY IV ADDL.
C.J.$ (JR.III\__I,}   CI.CH.WNO. 487/2004.

*IjIiIIé'  }:::I"II\»IIN«:§"bVN FOR HEARING THIS
DAY,  CQURE' IigimjjI:.;fI=I{I'I;'.__IrC-LLQWING:

KGNDER

' V'  - '§I:i.I'is <3-Ifi:n§:Ie{§':*Te'iiis£eI: petitien is gay the aceuged 21:2

 3&8. %g:I:€_§.I:$€dirIgf3 eaiéing ii}. questizgzz Sﬁﬁﬁiiffﬁéﬁ

fi:It£i.::gS.~§:§ j':£:§':€ csurés beiawz éﬁagmach, aa {ha trial

 '"--__ *<:I§:3I"i és:,2}f;I"I;§9I':&d 'ms p€Iii1é::i<>I3<3I* Iznﬂsr geaééazi 238 of tbs:

I: ?>EV5'I;:%.z"L5%: aaﬁ ;%eI3I£€:::®:":d: him ﬁe Iggy Rs,f£I215I@GG;'» a3

  .€:s:3IzIp§IIsa':§o:I sad II: addgiiiam, '£0 Izndergz} Si €93' gins

" Iiaogtfag azzﬁ Egg}: R$,§I£1if}S; - {Erie 331$ Ike Said jégzégfﬁﬁﬁi



being eenﬁrmeé by the iewer apeeﬁate eeurt by

dismissing ihe petitienefe appeai.

2. The facts ShGI'I1 of um1eeessary___.é'iet£1;;3--:.»_e:*e_"' .
that, the respondent filed a eernjgjaint befe1*:e_'v  "'

Court under 138 of the N.L Aet en petitioner has; borroxved"Tv_'}'3;$..1,(§(3,{§GQ_/4».: the '~ complainant on 25.1.2QO1 .}e$ay--:th»§_:g1nount within ene week; but the other handg the petitioner' for Rs. 1 ,O0,00Q,* . on presentation, was retu-rneé' 'aeeount elesed' and thereaﬁe: the' notice "£0 the accused en 15. I amti :.3IaA;;$_'fe.eeiVed by the petitioner and the ages §e;ve-----i:}:e yepbr' er: 1?.E.2GG2. As 'ihe East endeé 0:3; 3i.,E.,§2§ Ehe eemgéaérzenﬁ ﬁe ﬁfe his eempieini frezzi LZ¢2{3G2:

' weriwarﬁs' _é;:f:d iherefere the eezzzpiaini was fileé 9:; 13.92 {ﬁe Eizeiiaiieee peaéeﬁ, E: is eg fgéﬁs fezzrzdatiezza, the :: ee__i::zpEa§::an: eeugfhi the §§"8.}?€§' 'ie eeﬁviei the §€ﬁ§1iSI'i€§' bu/S 138 efihe ezze Ac:

3' Befere the Erie} eeert, en iseheif of {he eempiainant, the eompiainant was examined a...~3jVe»~I??W_~fi and six documents were produced on his _ accused led no €Vid€I1C€e The trial eou1't"aift'ef eiiidenee appreciation, came to the 'eor;'e1u'sic3n fnzit complainant had proved h_is"---._easeand_ iheteferethe * conviction and sentence Was_..tuhje__re.eu1t.' "Theeippe11ate eeur: agreed with the ifieﬁeez respects. 4* I heerfi iearned counsel Sri. Krishnam1,11r:h:,:z_' «;3, fer petitioner and Sri M.B.Nergurjéi' 'Eea1jried'4ee'L1nSei for the respondents and pemeed éhie' :<iee'<:ei<:iVs~ ef»_i;}e1,;e"ease. '3?5,>_ Tfhe ufifei--e§'the eeniemtien put feraeerd by the §eef::e;é"eeéeéfzeiei'-.§er the peiitiener ﬁe iheei; the eempieéet iieeifée 'by Eimiiatiene as it was 1103: filed eééhin ﬁilze };e'e";~;e§=§beé eerieci Eieheeeiieg the said Qﬁﬂiﬁﬁiiﬁﬁ, ii V' veggized ﬁle: the eeeéee Wee ieeueé :9 {he aeeeeee? ee _3~_5§.E,§2 and was received 'egg' {he eeeeeed en 181562 3:23 25 ﬁeye time if reekeeed item 25.192 Weuid expire dz: 3€},E.§2 and the camplaint ought is have been filed within {me menth from the Said data and as Febﬁdary had only 28 days, 316 samplaint could not presented on 1*" of March 2002. Therefaregd_3€heV'd<dd'drt§f below were not justified in ent€:"r{é1if1ir1ag"-«Athci itself at the first instance, In Vésuflﬁpdort 'of; dI'3.<'jvé"'-- contention, learned counseldpldced reiiaﬁce-I of; several decisions as well as View éXp;1desds~§d in "HAalsbury's Laws of England .

6. I116.__sfé:<i:--(:rid«.:_c.gjn1;e13"tir:::put forward is that, ' ' d_id'-_I'1dt"'€::;fé:* the witness box in View of ihéde 'laws by thts Apex Court in RangappaVVV"%f$¢-§\«fi'c3lf1é;r." {$33 2010 as 1898}, 1: is not ,_,ﬁ%c.§:é~:5aE:§r far ihé "&$--$?;,1S6C§ to enter £116 Witness bsxe but fmm {E16 €¥§d€E1C€ on rsstcrd that $336 p:E$fdmp§id;}§_ "Z2131 favour Of aha cempiajzzaiai sided *:febu*£ifa$df1~ in éiisis C{}ﬁI1€{Eii0I1 ii: is arguﬁd by rafsrring tic;

§}§a§§iiZ7E3'i§€}I1 sf ?'i?a?'-E that "dis Qomgéainagt has _g_§§:::i'::':€d thai: :19 wétrzess was @3563? xvheis. "shes amsuztzt «~R2,3as §3;§d is $26 acctggsd and sscagdéy :20 bank *2 (2 documents have been predueed te shew that the eemplainant had withdrawn frem the hank RSt1.,0O,QOQ;"~ few days earher.

complainant has admitted that, he did document or receipt from the acteiifse<"l« in, respect Qf~the'1 arnount of Rs.1,00,000/~ [haV'i1tg._ complainants Lastly, it suhxvnittect-I t the transaction involving where ethisﬁhvtequired to be done through the relevant provision of heretore, the material on record the accused had rebuttett " was in favour of the cempiattiaht. 'ef the Apex Ceurt was atse reheé; 'ugzeh tgregefd to the aferesaid CQI;Et€I?:'£i(}§:S ates;

":{:eXt eeetehtteh gut ferward is that the aee;ts1edV_h3:é§, fist admittea' his signature at: Exﬁt the "eheqt:e,3Z_§;a queetien. Referrihg te the eégtzetziee et the A "'-geettsfeé it} 31?; etetemeet, it is theretere Qéfiiéiééﬁéfi that eigneture ehffers atzd the trig} eeurt eeéﬁet hat have emherkeé 1;1§SE¥} 9:; examination er eerepartseh ef the F":

«;

M3 hand writing and eught te have taken the epinien ef the experts since the accused had specifically ﬁenied hefving affixed hie Signature en the eheque EZx.Pi. ti pointed Gut that the complainant has eeurse of his <:ross--~examinati0n t'hét'the date .1if1e11ti0hed".

in the cheque and the contents of 'the--Veheqtje' A;f;1re' different inks. For all these feésens, the was not justified in taking th.e signetufe on the Cheque EXQPI is that of 8, In, '~-"a:th_'reVs»aid Contention put forwarcl-~~end'~g_a1S'e:{ =pi"a_Vci--:1'g reliahee on the decisions i'ep0rte:{'i_ rs; ziioifeRI;%3'L:gt__'3h5e2, AIR 2001 83.3596, 2008 A1eu'*eewV%":%3e.,%"gage 2008 eeeoee, AIR 1999 .:i:99Aé'}e;.--~teee 5631 (199836 SCC 5:4, @095: 4 Z,';<§;}:n:9}1 eee eeet AIR 2992, AIR seee eee:sAe:gette:LR eeee eee 4242, Ate 2618 stetteee ".f:eer::eé1eeu::ee§ eetaght fee the eetiéiee being eﬁewed by esiﬁe the jedgmehte ef the eeerte Teeieze er ie the VA gtereetivet the eetegt if ﬁeeme it fit te reetanﬁ the eaeet the matter he reteeeéeé te the iréei eeurt eieee the triefi 2 E ,»"' Q0 eeuri has taken the 'view that ihe aecuseé had miserably faﬁed to preve his case.

9. Learned counsel Sri. M.B.Naragutige1""«féVrj: _ respondents on the other hand sugported' " "

of the courts below and repelleei, petitioner's eounsel on the fe11'0.ysringgr0'und';é_.

10. The first by the learned eounsel for that, the complaint is Axx2€eI:1:":\xzfti«1:i'1'i{'?;}e--e51irnitati0n period and the notice is not in V1': is on 16.132002 that {he the accused if the eaiﬁ date43;:S--» f§CK0ﬁﬁ€§JgVV§1h€ 21{":1'.;1;£ai daie etarrts fzem 2?.§.2;0G2 3;: e}:'§;>i:fe's:_._en ELLZGGZ. 'Ede eempiaénaat therefore §::3.S5'__§,e§ Q1: L3,2QC%2,; iirhéeh was ihe V _ ﬁa:e.""e§"-.V::§/iaieh the eempiaint Wee aeiuaiiy preeezzteé. :32: eauee :3? aeﬁer; erase 0:: §,2.2€'}Q2§ if me said £3 €X€§:,i@€{:§g {ﬂee ﬁle £:G'{:°HI1€§'1C€If3€I":7€ ef ihe Eéizgééaiéen gezéeﬁ 'ezezﬁé 'éae frem 22132; and withézé eﬁe menﬁa fyem {hat éaée the eempéeiet was ereeezzzieé ea {sq J 'K 1.32802. ﬁe such? the queetien ef the eemgtaimt being barred by iimitatien does net ariee. in this regard learned eeunsel plaeed reliance en the Ageéi decision in M /' s Saketh India Limited Vs Limited and referred to the facts :e'fmthe« sédd and drew attention to para,8 in v'p_ai*'ticu1a1f}_"_tA It ;':sv'a'1's.(>"'- argued in this regard that the"=tdexv tetkeh in India Limitecfs case ihdveduhvsequent ease of Subodh M. Shah (AIR 2008 referred to by the learned'. Vthehdfvreepondents in this eonneetteh Vin (2006)2 -S,C.C (Cri) 546 in ti%i:.§e'h Saketh India Limited's ease was ffeiietrgedl '-»'§Vhe':"efe::e; the questien ef the eompiaint V' I V 'earfed 1%.:::*e:tetien deee net arise even if it is taken ihte eE:§§u.::e*3: 2&3 has get eat}? 28 deyeg E}, AS far as the merits of the ease is €$§1€®F:1€&g v§_s;_'.:e'{.:*g::ed the': the 'Jiﬁiﬁf taken 'ey the Apex ﬁeeet in Eiltfiehzie Jaeardhen Bhefe ease has been feiiewed in eefeeeqaent deeieietz ef the Apex {team he Reegegee Vs M X %::;;;1l3* "Kg K Mehane ease ané in this regard learned eenneel referred te p2:tre.,14 of the deeisien in Rangappa'eV_~e_eee. It is therefere argued that, in the instant accused did not enter the witness box and has 1'1:{3't,x able to rebut the presumptigjnh "it; ifeavotnf' complainant. Reference was also Inaete to Seeti:0n'* the N .I.Aet along with section of the._EVi:;IeneeHAct.

12. As far ash the eheque is concerned? iearned the reasoning given by that both the courts ,h-awe' that the signature found is not different from the eigneiture Ve1§_vtheVe.eet';,ssed~*'én 313 etaternentt Therefore, he .e%:::Vfe:§*__fe:3;e eeinre-'--««ieé by the eeurte beige? in taking E':-he eigeaiere 01; EXP} is that ef the ae'et_:eed._ n' A Fer the efereeeid reeeenea ieerneﬁ eeeeeei for Qieenieeei ef the eeiitéem. ﬁe fee as the " §e€:£t;Teee:**'e eeeyer fez zrezeanﬁ is eeeeernede it: is argued 'bjg the Eeereed eeeneeé fee the yeeeeeéente Ehef: the ryx' A//' &~ "~ .3 s eernpiainani is dead and his L.RS have C{}1"I1€ en reeerd and iherefnre remand to the trial eeurt does not ariee.

14. in the light of the contentions put _ the petitienerie counsel in partieiiiar aI1'd"'§:£§;}{ifig =ini;<.:) account the submissions made 'by 'eideé afifiei-..if11«:{ decisions referred to by then*i,"---wheti'1er th€Vj;_11'd;.Ag1Tl.€I]{S Of 2 L the eeurts below can be sustained law is thegboint fer consideration;

15. SineejA;~.ifiie.viipeiéit;ien'eii::Viii.ae,....,:fapproached this court by Vpetition, this court "'\Vi1l_'}V1VHihe concurrent findings of faeisiiinéiessi is abie to shew that the fi1"1diEjig'8_3.i'€ n-erjéfeiise in I1EijEL!.E'€5 Keeping 'tile aforeeaié :'p§:%i:iei;3§e.Air: view; the inaiiéer requires in be examined. i6, ."V'i?§V_si:;fai' Be 'the first eenieniien nut ferwaré injg' 'V..§:ie ieatrnézé eeuneei fer the peéiiiener ie eeneerned, ii is §§S§LE'{€ iiiiai: iiie 3.€i2i2§€§ had ieseieeé the iegai _»:fi_:;§'iii:e EXaP'; on i5.Ee2GG2. ii: is; aiee an ediinitied faei 'V Wiiieitz is name {rein ihe reeenﬁ that ﬁne {fG§'1"i§i§ii"i§ was jgresented eh 1.32082. if 15 daye period is yeekened from 36.120023 it Weuld expire en 30.3.2002. Buti-{the period is reeiieeed from i7. LZGO2, them it xv0}i_i'éi:Ve>.{p~ii'eV on 31.12002 and the cause of action complaint will arise on 1a2v2OG:2>">Va'vf1d"

excluded as contended by the coLi.I'_;se1 respondents,' then the pefieti"» sta.1*tés,: from 252.2002 onwards anciahe ~--fi1eci an 3.2002 therefore would' be the main eontention petitioner is that, the vﬁtom the expiry of 15 Clays thief the notice, in other Werée, item 18' 192002 iteeif and E5 yeijwe1iici.Aeeeie'V'te.an end en 33.22002 and the {the_:eiere might te have been presented eh €28;;i_2€i§}.'?L"_~vi3ii~t,;'iiet b€}£'QiiC§ that peeled. Ziiie pesiiiee iii . iew %ﬁhe:"eiei'"'eV is requireé te he kept in ariew te egepreeiete ueafefeeeie eehteeéiem ef the ieeeeeé eeeieeei fer the

-- piezrtiee, zcégsyﬂw VJ;

1?'. En the ease ef Saketh lnﬁie Limited Vs India Seeuritiee Limited {AIR 3.999 SC 1090) the Apexﬁeurt has held that the perieel ef erie month complaint will have to be reckoned frO1i"1__" the immediately falling the day on Whlielt the days from the date of receipt ef Therefore, on the facts of be£¢r~ee Court held that, X&7h€Il:'Eh€ deyeliteisthired on 14.10.1995 the eause complaint will arise on is excluded for countihzg month, then the eempls.-h1tV'v would be Well Within tihtel _ ffhe eﬁfeeeeeiel éeeietere wee fellewee by the e§exleee:l*:t't»:gLl':ee ease Qf Jzneat Steei &, Power 3:02. ifs? Athlete gegtgeeszeez Ltd" reperted; in {eeeee see {Cri} 'V.:E5t0, e1.:e.e.- the ﬂee}: Ceertt er: feete it: the eeee :;e A "--e:e.eet:;'eet feegeé that the eeeeeeé; Wee eeeeeé with the ..V%"'-'.«:.;f";§{_:5tiee eh l&i.lQ97 and 15 eeye time expired er:

:~V'25t.l.':§9Z?L The eeeee ef eetieh ereee fie ﬁle the / VA fegfzféer:

eompiairz: en 26,E,§9§'?, which day was exeiuded in computing the period ef limitatiezm as required vtmder Seetien 12$} ef the Limiiaiieﬁ Act, 1963 and?Wt§'$eVi~e4fei;e.eV. the court held that the limitation would 2'?.1.199'?. The Apex Court hasveleo' «:>_b'ser.g>eT§1_"

point was also Concluded by the ju@ig§ment '..1efA'the Court in Saketh India Ltd.' .I11c'iié;'t.x. Ltd. referred to earlier by «_

19. But?_""'howei23ef,'V¥ ef'7 the decisions referred to, e__é'u_n::e1"A',_Shri Hasyagar for the petitior3\.e:r;. }.ﬂ.:{§vVwis"§that the geriod sf :5 days we;:£d4'_'be the date of receipt of the netiee' The'-fire: ef the éi-';?eisi0:1e £11 this €T:0:111€C{iC2I'3 is :11 ef SfL"v--impart? SSA 233, Exim géidee Séik reperied in izeeeg SCC 55?. 3::

age __s§e.i§_ the Agex Cﬁilfég after eeneidermg {he ';:;:*e:?:eie;jiés ef ihe Njﬁgeic as we}: ae S€V€E"a§ éeeésieesﬁ A ;i%_f§.iE"§fb§_I'§.i$€i up 'size §%Si'£3§G§}: 22:1 Eew ei §e:*eg;°e§§';-2é es ﬂew / Q ?

"E4. The upshe: ef the dieeuesien ie, er: the date when the notice sent by fax reached the drawer ef the cheque the period of 15 {within which he has to make the payr;1~e:i_§:V}'. "

has etarted running and en the --

that period the offence is eeinpleted the amaunit has been paid in t1i'e..:11ea.:i'W_}'iiIe'§' 7 ' If no Complaint was fiiegj :x«*iti?.i_i91'»Qnee,»rii§:xf;1}1 therefrom the payee _sta'1:i{i{.V_f0r§id{ieﬁH from launching ex .pr:3seeutA.3'§:1'ufh:ereafteI'*,"di1e to the clear Vin Section 142 oftheéxctﬁ" V V' 'V i It is, theref0fe..,_ *;::1eear «fr.o_ in__ the-«'v"aferesaid observations that enfiheiIef.tf1e.t--.;§erio'd,- {he offence :3 complete, unless éhe' -has 13eei::;__ paid in the meanwhile. 4;2{},_. Efi ef Prem fﬁfhand Vgay Kumar $89 :€z'eg.sf}:pai2'%'iSs;};;e, repmee :3: {eeeege eee era {he Apex at §e:'egre:§h~ E E:

The peried ef eee meeéh fee fﬂieg ﬂee AA ~.eem_;e§a3§3::i WEE ee :'€?3:{§E'2f3:{§ {rem 'ﬁée day " 'E:::1z'::ed§e.':e§y feﬁewing 'ihe day en which {he eeﬁed ef fifteen éeye free: {fee éate ef 'fahe reeeigi ef iirze neiiee by ﬁée dyejeser exgiyeef"

éaéie ef Qie reeeipi ef the eeiiee by ihe E6 Thus, :5 days has is be reckezzed {rem ihe date of receipt of ihe notice.

21. In the case of Harman K Limited Vs. National Panasonieeihciia reported in (2009)1 sec 729; it axz§§ee1;ge1dJ%eti§gt' service of such notice anel the V accused to pay the ﬂee period of 15 days thereaftere _'.-the offence is eempletedg t.f1e:'eeLic1....r;§ecisi0n§ the Apex Court also in the earlier decisio£1"ie (Bharafi) Ltd. Vsg Geixiy Lti and in parﬁeular refereed 3:.) pe:regfIa.§h§8 wherein ii was ebserved ﬂme: é ﬁe eay ﬁle peried ef ene ."--»e1e::*§?,Ef1--: ﬂing ihe eempéeiet zreiﬁ be a:'eeE:§e1':'ed frem the deie imreedéaieiy faﬁing _ ﬁe}; er: which ézhe eezieﬁ es? :5 ﬁajgs free: zjzrawee expires."

223 A iearnsed Singls Judge sf this ceurt in the Case Qf Sri Krishna Bhupathi V3,, Chafzriana C<7>ns€ru€f::'9:2s§ repgrtﬁd in HR 2003 after Considering the Apex Court decisions t1*:e._é'a's;eé_4'T ' of M/s Saketh India Ltd, Vs. M/%s"':n:1:a 'Secufitigsivv M/s Si} Import USA Vs. M /_s Eﬁfn Z§_iV_cn1es Bangalore, and K.Bhaskaraf:'L«?. :Vs. Sai'1}§a1*;{r1 ifaiﬁhyan V Balan, ha$ taken f;h<§ 4J.j:e\xr_«" :h«":~ i1<ix*tice was received an 25.1200 days starts running fromf' expire an 8.2.2001. '2€3fV '§11é'said decision, this court Court decision in M / 8 Si} in the Qase 0f EVE/S Salgéth E::c:ia;L:;::. am'§v-gasheia thus:

V = 0:" ms $3361 §:'§::0::::,<:€m5n"i, ii ﬁiégigs' éfihat the ?§Qr:*§3ie ﬁégprerns Cam': was Qgriéiéiéring the gaﬁed ef 331$ Eﬂﬁﬁih as _ ﬁeqféifeé mééﬁr Ssciian E4~2{"b} sf ﬁie £51: and x _ :":1i}i: as :9 xsshszg iéze pszégéé Qf E5 days expéygs as is reqvgireﬁ 's:§ he aaieuiaéed unégr §€€3iiG§3 138 3? 315 A93 Er: éézis régarﬁ, as réghily paixétgd {éiﬁi by fins Eﬁariisﬁ ssgzmsai fez' %:ir2€ x _ :";::,m:1i:':g Seem; {hat aigey Eiself 332$ éhiss eseizﬁd reepehdeh: {he Eater' pmnouheemené ef ihe Apex Cent: in Ev?/S 811} Import is dearly attracted. in :he said deeisien afte:*e'.._i*._ considering the provisions of the Act a$.~~wxeéIVI':

as considering the ether pronouneemeht,§11: the ease of K.BhaskaraI1 »A~»V'fsi Vaidhyan Balan the Hen'bi»e Sshpfeme» 'A has held that on theV.e'd.efte '' sent reaches the drawe:=.V:VV:{jf the period of 15 d3.§'§ (\Arith'i11.. he hae-'Vito make the payrnefﬂ 1%§:1a.:1ing and on the expiry of pVeﬁZ.Qd.A.'t_h;e=.'ipffence is completed' 't1=i_;e" " been paid ._ 5' _ in the After tzilﬁng jA1i73£e_AV0xf. :11-e 'aferes_aid principles, the learned Sihgie Jipujgee iiz*e::VtUen_4"*e::.fEie1d ii} ihe ease befere him thus; ' 'V " In ehe preeerﬁ: eaee admitteeéy '* _ '{he_ was reeeiazeé by the eeifaiener 0:: :2T5L:§l~e2QQi 511$ {he eeréed ef 3:5 deys eéiarte expire en 8g2.2Q<}Z. ........

, /7 6% 2"/¢ M g s

23. §:*evi3a {:2} £0 Sectierz E38 also makes it dear ihai: the: payment has to be made within 15 da *3' the receint of 1:116 said notice.

24, Thus, an 'a careful L>":§Qnsid¢::*at1'§:3.: "' 'V aforesaid proviaian of Section of the law laid down by decisions cited by both Cv1§t6»..C'rIc of the notice is the date has ':0 be reckoned. Inamg by both sides that ::.t11€"€: the accused on 36; date would expire an . 1.2002 as pointsd out by iearned c<:j%i:1;is61_V4.':-3:iA?&i'B;»'Nargund far the fespendents. .--v«.fi'E1€§f1t3§fae:iéVg ,__f:h§A"'::®:::,;3:aint §§'€S€I1¥Zf3§ GI}. 3.3.2862 £3 ft:'L:«% sﬁ§5 Eimitatiﬁn as ii: is fﬁﬁd beyaﬁéi {E36 §€;a*§<:'>'ti $5 '$1-§;§:%::§:1§%,}':~ Bééh the camrts '§eEow haxfe ::§i §;:3:;ss§:%re:3é':i iha @m's;§Si<.:::: éf iaw as Q{3:*::f:ai:':@d in 3ﬁ{;'E§®I1 $5 the: E'\§.§¢;%si as Wei} 3% the Eat? Eaéd £32323: by '$163 z§j;--5&}: Cour": :3: $116 afaremsniiensd eases, 51:3 sash? {E16 28 sampiain': being barred by 'time, the trial Cguri Gught ':9 have dismigssd the compiaint on this scare alene.

25. Coming to the next contention by the learned courmel for the '* 'V Complainant has contended to the accused, except .0-'€'ihef document was placed of he having paid the iaanv the accused:

In the Course of complainant has for the transactien that he took no d<3<:umé_:'t$ §_f:{§u3ed while advancing Rs.1,GG,Q$'5G-§ ~.vv faﬁiher admitted in the course if v ,h§$, .::3§::€)SE?3f%€:§:f_f5LII3i19i"8;ii€},YE'ihﬁﬁ he ﬁié 2219*: pméiuce an}? bazzk % %§Eé;:»€§*.:,that he had witheiraarvzz R$'LGQﬂQG,f~ §%ia:=:_; %,0 iiéigsziéagad @3133 GE" aézzanﬁizig the ban ii'; the '<,., 'ge€:i3;sé§::"1~A§a:": 5:931: this, the amsuni: sf Eéan ézsing 113*:

am: am 'agézzg Rsg§g§{é,€}G§f-, 2: is éifficzﬂi is gggggiepﬁ "aha giané af "she csmpiaﬁaagi that h€ maﬁa $:;:€h Zrmgg 398;: aéazgncamazit sxﬁihaui iakiag 331}? égcugzszgi

ix) whaégaeafer and :10: aver: a reseipi {mm "ihﬁ accuséd.

Theréforé, the contention of the pei:1'iion€§*'$ Cauns_€E.._:hat the cemplainam, did net advancé accused Cannot be dismissed as having no féérgev E11.

26. As far as the third c3c1nt:§f1£it§:>r1'jT»i_s"'~c§>1f1(§&5%11éti;:

the cheque in question hasﬁéexg mﬂlijéd. The "

signature on the Ch€q].1(§ 33 €"--.:ha¥:'(if--th§_ﬁ;,CCuS€d, hawevsr, has not been"marke.di';--.Thé-ﬁérﬁizsed, during the Cr0ss~examinati<51)_ géoffzplainaiit RWJ, has specifically.s'LiggéSt«§d"tx:§ .E'.'»?\ZV. 1"'ti:j,_atV_th.e signature on "tha chequeVA.1f,:<;.. tiis§;1.'i:--.<':>:--"t ﬁh<:~-€.:t§:cu$€d§ Therefore, the burder1 =:i,_s 'Q1: to establish the signaturs an E;>:,P»iuV€:"e;:>.Vb€_§ﬁaﬁ'~f;f't7ﬁe accused. This burden 22239 v ._E3ec§H:§*:€s:_':2:.{3_r€ egﬁiééni->~::s an éhe gar: cf the «::Gmp1a:'nani 11:1 ééiiiiif '"8f'-.._%:§1.:é=?'* ._;sigiI:a?1::::*€$ af ihs accussd in 'aha 3:3 $t§;*:*%;§'§*:91a:v:_é:.":.:§:**§:_'*§§'e1E as in ihe vaﬁvzaiaiéa 3;?" 316 acixzsed Em": '.., *'€:a§y'i:1g$2-ééh iihs Ségnamrﬁ :1'; E:<,.?~«i, Eégszigh tha trig} ma Ea:/27%;? a;§§€§1a%€ 3:333": harass iriﬁd £9 £101': {hrs :35 an %1a:':§Wri'i§:1g sxperi. Thsrafsra, {E16 cﬁugfts "bgiiizzrxz €e::1m§,E€€é S€f§€}L'£S array in 3.£:?€3€pi§I'2g £125 22 signature 0:: EXP»: as that 0f the aeeused and the accused has ﬂatly denied the signature an it by ;:_>::..7:i:ing

3. specific suggestion '£0 P.'v'v'. 1.

27. Far the aforesaid, reasQ:f;s,, the 'iirLi§e::g S'wef..t}1ee '"

courts below cannot be sustaineél eithhe? iri».1_:iW 'c:rA:he:

evidence on record and, ".fhe1jef0re;._Vinrhy 'View, the * : findings of the courts below be.i:l'1g_'pem'erse nziture are liable to be interfered with-;A 4 V

28. is allowed and the stand set aeide.

T he offence under Section 138 ef in degesﬁi be refunded to 'h Sﬁfe EEEEQE A" W ._$1§?e;e%<{:,§5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court