Karnataka High Court
Smt. Vijayakumari S/O Sri Kuppuswamy vs Sri. T. Vasanthakumar S/O Sri. C T ... on 22 July, 2011
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
"L"
4. I iiave heard iearrieci (tminsei Shit. Nethraveihi for the }."}€{IiU(}I'1€',I" and Sri.Ambaji F{é:ei_"i\?.é;}',:1e for the respendeiii; mic} perused the re<:<irds:A"'-iii'
5. Submission of the ]ie.aif.ne:ji 4'eQ'uAi4i'&3ei'VV'fQ__r .;.h,e petitioner is them the pei;ii1i<>__ner iievvier iioeiiifieah oi';
lakhs on 20.5.06 and it is uofi that, she had taken Ref) 999 eaid the said amount had been ieihd it is also acknowleelgeh In respect of the loan Ieetitioner had issued a and the Complainant after of R35 iakhs, did not retiiih the b1V.31Zk: Ch('fC}L1€ to the petitioner. T he Cheque » §VVeeV issue'd_A"by the petitioner as a Collateral security to ihne'-.ii0einK-.'C;3itaeé:eii(iri of the year 1999. ii, is the further ease eifhe peiiiiierier thaii the i'e1ai:ion.ship between the 1§2:ifi.ies was e<>i*di.-:11 iii} the reieaee of the Tamil film iiéekari' . As the p€Y.i{ii{}I1€F'S husband was in the eineiina bueineeei bui: the mime «:35 the peifiierier was being used .2*''// Se '\T by her husband tim 2Ei,{T€7{}L1I'H, of the film Inen-3it>tie§'L:'ahexgeV which was teteased on 14.1.0?',..i:j B2t_hg'ai'e:t'e: netu being reieased in the theatre ef c%<j1hp1ai;1a;i_t~,..the complainant therefore of' the".
blank cheque given it}. the a11d"het.fi}l'ed up the name and date in fifesented it to the bank and the gtihequwas"dishei:Qure'd.'v
6. "i_11;_§Atc$' 'the A.afei*es'aid stand ef the petitioner, ..V.1ear:j1ed' '<:0ti15z':;elV'"t'(:»r:§ the petitioner argued that, 'even thecefnpiatifi-ante has admitted in the course of hiseross eXa'i:iimat;ito'r1 that in respect of the lean gt\{eh"'b:{ the V"t:o_thp1atna11t, earlier, he balance was to be petitioner and secondly, the complainant the contents of EXDI. D2 and D3 beifig; ifthie own hatndxvrittittg.
" Nextiy. it is argued that the eerjapiainant has ' ~.n7e»t giirodueed 21113,?" €.i(,){7t,iII?£?I"£fS t(L:= s:;how that he withdrew = ....E-35,5 takhs from the bank a day er two prior to gvtttg Egan to the pet:itier:<:::* and the €7§}H1§}§£li§"£3I"£; ates; has net petitioner thy the waxy: to dz'2im=' an adverse irtterentte ztgetizlst, the (7{)£t1pi.i%iiit}é;11"]?! Ass :5et.1<7ht the jtt{igmetit,s~::'i:.tfthe eourts beiow {:31} flat HO interference.
11. Having thus heard that requires ta be atrtswered iS,._ as tc?""t=.ijhethe;§' ttzete» petitioner has ptaeed en(it:.gt1.Vvmate:i«a} way of rebuttal evidence tot 1"«f3£"}t_1fZL'7£,h€§'pi;f3S'U.fi'i§}'EiOH in favour of the ctomplaitaant. .
12' 5T the cheque bears the signajifife is in dispute. Whether on that said that the complainant hasAv.estat§'£is_hed: his ttatse. One of the essential i&n§r;redt.e'nt?3..«0t' 138 of the Nl.Act is that, the V' eomiji2ti;?;a;::t"e~x2grt~i1 have to establish that the eheque was iSAS'i.§€C1v.'vIOtfiEitdS diettharge of legally enforceable debt. A Wthethet' it ear: he Said that, as an the date of issuance '~~«f}t""<:E*:'e<:;ue, the p€ELit,,§{)I'1€f W215; due 21 .é;um at R35 Iakhs to t " ~-the -eempiaihzmt.
gfiafl é ;
'E
13. hi has come in the evidence of _§?'_'\}'i%'?e_ 3;
the <:ress-- eXan11:1at:z<;»:'1 that. the _ei'a'te.__<;f 1;:+st:a1:_ee'V Of Cheque EIXPL there was he ::"5{Ff},i)U'I?.§"d'U:¥','VV'SE13 petitioner. It is aiso the e:':i~71_sie_Vof the pet4it1':}nei:_'v«thVat, shef had taken RS5 Iakhs 1o;1r;_' :::§g-t.:ehe_ye;;:~~itegefand that was repaid by the aforesaid admitted faetgegitf examined, the COlVIf€1"1'£}:O1€".1'"'I§5"'tl"7§T, counsel for the p€titiQ.H€f_tif£%f( that was payable by her Oh to carry enough weight behind the reasons.
=14. Thehfifsti CH6 that the cheque EXP} is not inV.xthei""hahdyvriting ef only the petitioner. Except the s,ig'1_:aAtuf'e.,v._patt"0f the cheque the other writings, even aee'erdihgte PW~1. ate in different ink and different _ h:::1f1dWVr'it¢:11g, S€C€i}HCHy; the date mentioned in the in ink is N5. i,Q?'. '£'he ehezrgue teat it/seif indicates u "that the year stte:€t:s with E9... Thus' {me wonders as te whether the petimmez' <?:€§:»tz1d have issued a Cheque which was {if the year i'E}..,. t hi)i'ig after in the year 200?, This itself raises; S€*?i'i{)i,;§S doubt 3b:€}"tl.t'. a[€h€ petitioner having issued the Cheque in the };e'21rV2OGx'?i. _ 1 "
i5. The further fact is th::1t,...P'{2'J'~ii 'admitted in the Course of his evidence t4ha't},_h"0 ar1":{3ti:1t'_V\;va:;f; ciueih by the petitioner till the the cheque EZXPL The only g1*<>t:h}fiZ JtiieL'vvhe'titi0her has taken ist loan from the veonipiavi.i"{ai'iti= Rs.5 iakhs in the year of the petitioner that given a blank Cheque signettby faetor to be taken note of is that, it of PW» i that the Tamil fiimfffiekari' teas. ifeieased in Bangalore on 14. 1.07 and it 'i$'8I.SO..VhiS"3t€f'Bf1iSSiOfi that the said fiim was met released i':1h.i's '§'h,e1*ei'ore, the aigumenti of the learned eeuh:--;e'I..f0Vi* the p€f,ii',i()I1€i' that, on aeeotmt ef the said being' hei: reieaeeti in the theatre of the eéiimpiaiiiaht, the C{}fI"1pi€iiI1ai'1f made use of the aid Cheque whieh starta with the jgeai" 19... , in the year aim V , M/,w*"
<- 3 e;*z'1<>ugh E1'I2}'E1€::',I,'i.':l§ 15> rzébui my ;;:*c>.~e:::z1;,:>ii{V:e;V1 in fa,-v;>L:r of {lbs {7{)£'I':p}«:%1iI'"i:--:1I1i. /is ;s;u<'§:. {E122_§:,z<i;,{:z2£sr:ts«; of%--hé;< §%<}t:.1'::s below are iiable E0 E;><> >~;-:3: ;2s-;i<§<: anaii {V192}-<.%__é? §j';}éi$:éT'€h€V'« f<>H0Wing ()i'dC1".
The revision §f)C;',{'§11'{>I« §}4.__2Ti§§{}\¥/"{.?{§, V'E'h r;_% ;§e.::%gg::f1e1r:ts é;>.f the Courts b<:*Eow slfzmti f"%€fi "-;,s_se§e:.{<>. ' §'*'12:7_pgiiitiiorler is a{:qL1i't;:ted of the {}{§{,5'§¥=;'é.'§'é".£"§E§:!§}§.;V:C3{I§-_:§Z§_§é'§§.,E"}S§ her and fine amount, if 21:13,; (i§3.i"j%3'.'4i¢§fv:£ fii,'"A.§;§§/1_2'1HV. 1'€,'I',L,il'H€d to the petitionelg D17 If: ! 'V