R Mallikarjuna vs H R Sadashivaiah on 18 June, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 69]

Karnataka High Court

R Mallikarjuna vs H R Sadashivaiah on 18 June, 2008

Bench: Jawad Rahim

Eﬁi THE HIGH CGGRT OF KARNATAKA AT .4

DATE) "rs-us mg 18"" DAY or: JUNE, I'sf508 :    

BEFGRE   % %   %
THE HGWBLE MR. 3USTIC§3»'§Q"33iVD @935:  
CRL. A. N9. isms? 20:33»   

CEWF, " ~. A
cm. A1891 £1653'-®_F' 2903  

BETWEEN:

2 R fv1ALLI?<A?x3ij?§A,:'4?"':"EAR:5._ =--.V_ %  A
SXQ T.iJ,;R§sg;fi_APPA g   _ 
Ric: Rzvﬁa T_?-'y_fsé.K'R§3Aﬁ..NEﬁ\Rv %
sz:s£»E$Hv;rA9;A%=azr:E?;MIL;..  
%iGLjEf~%i&§§AS'f?,§iVR Tc=wPs'  
%-§%',3§_f~iA§¥.¢§fE'aiPU7?.?s'   
  V   % % APPELLANT
 . W  "--.._ "~.#§20f'«1f¢iON IN BOTH THE CASES
(BY 39,: 'SVU8%f_Ai'2H;.,ﬁ,DV. E-'GR M/S KUMAR & KUMAR,
ADVSJ  _  VM    Q

  A.  ..... 

    RSﬁ§»{§A§H.IVAIAH

 . ,ﬁrs=.':tE:¢AaAszwa

% ,  ..SfG'.«Tv..3f.' Ri39RAP?A, 55 'rams
' _ RXATRIVER BANK ROAD

'"?~iEﬁgR SEDDESHWARA RICE MILL
3-§<i'&§_E.?€ARASIPUR mww

RESPOMDENT

   common :56' Sam THE cases
{av sax sHA:«:;<AaAppA, ABV. ;

*3-HF



 



5. The #eemed jurisdictinnai Meeéet2fa.te'-Ldteek

cegrrizenzce add on the basis of the avern1eﬁts<'VV'_'i~;§:__".E-§'3_e'

cemdiaint secured presence cf the respondent ~¥[je§::é.':§se_d ~ 2

issuance df ;:recess. The respendeet --;-Ae¢cdeed..'reéiSt:ed' we pmsecutier: centendind that he-was iidit_ {:~uifty'fe1v'f'..§:!?:eV§;fi3'eri?ce':> punishable under Section 138 df"vt'§i_e.;§:ct"é:'sdfqdasgvfinnecent. buried triai the Cemeieifeédt' eiﬁja-ﬁe:;fg*'wA:!vdi*:;e:-::iL'V.§'iA:ii*:'e__seIf end tendered evidence ef t?2reeA.witne$eev*$1enddfjei§ed"dd':V'--.S§'*'decuments. The respondent his contentions examined ffeiied on partition deed séiericediat ' ' 'C'er;_Vsi::ieititi¥;;v_dtVi'1eV evidence an retard the teamed «.trieiv-';ii:ide;e heid tir1xet"ti*:'d'z1ei1 execution ef the cheques by the '-"efﬁtfdsed was estabiished 'yet the Compiainant had feiied'.te'f..sedbstent§ate that the cheques were issued by eccgzeed in discharge of iegai debt or Iiabiiity and ' ":£i'cnee"e«uentiy aceuéited him. Aaerieved by the said cemman V"'.._ﬁjudeernent eaesed in the case referred td eeeve, the V , jCem:;iainer:t is in eeeeai.

0;/:"2},e 3% contents have ﬁeen fiiied in ;3er¥1a;::s by different ink. As it wauld not rérzder such instrumenaiiiwal ér an-aé.ni}5.$§b_i&, the Cemzriainant certainiy can base actien an

21. The gecsrzd aspect is ai>eL:i:14issu'a§:?'1'vci"e':1¢':;f' V€'t1éfq_ues K V' fer csnsicieratien. If we hoid that;"::he'_'_'c5 eq'ues' were iéeaihf enforceable. 3r:§§'*~..3;he A'CC§_rr":D§éév:r§é'%1}t"v~~i22:é to'- establish that it was issued bVy_ faccus§;d .fﬁ%*'f:§nHs§deratie22. The evidence of Compiaifﬁéit t%1_a1L{.,'t.ai}ii'é:%_d'§'aiaiue of hi5 share , in Siddashwara 8.32:: Miﬁ"acéi;séé_'jh_a.%V'.is§::é6 twc» cheques, ﬁnés ms: "$7ii'pAa§:%;%t t:ha=g:evid é_'iiCé'V'cf accused himself. The fact tha 7t_t}1.e reﬁeived the amount tewards vaiuegf th'é""i-arr";. 'Wés cane cf the meveabie property

-"'»_¢f tEi.éi'*j.;g.§'§1t..%farniA¥ik;vvsu;)ports Com:::iainar:t's centention that gin':Vé§?nii3r:_:i1éit3a%%r$%;anéinﬁ rice miiis owned by the jeint famiiy' ﬁfépéfty fact brought into partitian under Ex.m. .. 22'; : Since the accuseé admits that he has succaaded '1 a"?§d"'£>és:ame ewﬁer cf tﬁe Siddeshwara Rice Miii and the VT Euﬁisiaizwant haﬁ no share in it after suah acauiﬁﬁion, is in V ' su¢por't of Cerm5iainant's case that he haﬁ giver: up his gin/Ly sum af Rs.3,0G,ﬁﬁ'G/~ wéth ﬁne sf Rs.2,,00,Gﬂ0/- uruderao sirnpie imprisarzmerst of three months."-fj' " M

29. Simiiariy, in C.(:. f~io}ASfZGiﬂ 2";,'aé:a:$§ﬂ~=.;v£$ fﬁiifiﬁ auiity and sentenced ta -gay 'é.$'iimV cczvered under the cheque be$'i*i'2a_xgj ﬁp. fiated 15» 11-2080 with fme of undergo simpie imprisaramerzt of ; ~--

30. deposit the said ameuntvV.:vitﬁi'Ai§~ §é Or: recavery cf the amaunt:'1.;Amp¢sé:%3:'v'i.éif3f§2}: as ﬁne, the same shai! be paié is fhan%i2:;r's?§'r::iéi'n_a'z*:f".3s ztormawsatien. _ 31:5 Bﬁi;_h th'eHé;§ﬁeais are aliowed.

Sd/-9 % Iudgg

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court