Karnataka High Court
M/S Applicomp (India) Ltd vs Smt Maya C on 25 March, 2014
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1561 OF 2007
C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.960/2008,
961/2008 AND 962/2008
In Crl. A.No.1561/2007
Between:
M/s. APPLICOMP (India) Ltd
A company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its
Factory at Attibele
And Branch Office
At Bangalore
Represented by its
Administrative Officer and
Letter of Authority Holder
N K Madhvesh ... Appellant
(By Sri.S.J.Sanghvi, Advocate)
And:
Smt. Maya C
Adult, W/o Sri Chaturbhuj
124, Ashirwad Apartments
3rd Floor, Palace Cross Road
Bangalore - 20 ... Respondent
(By Sri.V.Vijaya Shekara Gowda, Advocate)
*****
2
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (1)
and (3) Cr.P.C praying to set aside the judgment dated
16.08.2007 passed by the XXI Additional CMM.,
Bangalore in C.C.No.7563/2003 - acquitting the
respondent/accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
In Crl. A.No.960/2008
Between:
M/s. APPLICOMP (India) Ltd
A company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its
Factory at Attibele
And Branch Office
At Bangalore
Represented by its
Administrative Officer and
Letter of Authority Holder
Nagendra Prasad C.P. ... Appellant
(By Sri.S.J.Sanghvi, Advocate)
And:
Smt. Maya C
Adult, W/o Sri Chaturbhuj
124, Ashirwad Apartments
3rd Floor, Palace Cross Road
Bangalore - 20 ... Respondent
(By Sri.V.Vijaya Shekara Gowda, Advocate)
*****
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (4)
Cr.P.C praying to grant leave to appeal against the order
dated 28.08.2008 passed by the XV Additional CMM.,
Bangalore in C.C.No.32585/2002, set aside the
3
aforesaid order - acquitting the respondent/accused for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and convict the respondent/accused.
In Crl. A.No.961/2008
Between:
M/s APPLICOMP (India) Ltd
A company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its
Factory at Attibele
And Branch Office
At Bangalore
Represented by its
Administrative Officer and
Letter of Authority Holder
Nagendra Prasad C.P ... Appellant
(By Sri.S.J.Sanghvi, Advocate)
And:
Smt. Maya C
Adult, W/o Sri Chaturbhuj
124, Ashirwad Apartments
3rd Floor, Palace Cross Road
Bangalore - 20 ... Respondent
(By Sri.P.N.Nanja Reddy, Advocate)
*****
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (4)
Cr.P.C praying to grant leave to appeal against the order
dated 28.08.2008 passed by the XV Additional CMM.,
Bangalore in C.C.No.168/2003, set aside the aforesaid
order - acquitting the respondent/accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and convict the respondent/accused.
4
In Crl. A.No.962/2008
Between:
M/s. APPLICOMP (India) Ltd
A company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its
Factory at Attibele
And Branch Office
At Bangalore
Represented by its
Administrative Officer and
Letter of Authority Holder
Nagendra Prasad C.P. ... Appellant
(By Sri.S.J.Sanghvi, Advocate)
And:
Smt. Maya C
Adult, W/o Sri Chaturbhuj
124, Ashirwad Apartments
3rd Floor, Palace Cross Road
Bangalore - 20 ... Respondent
(By Sri.V.Vijaya Shekara Gowda, Advocate)
*****
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (4)
Cr.P.C praying to grant leave to appeal against the order
dated 28.08.2008 passed by the XV Additional CMM.,
Bangalore in C.C.No.33535/2002, set aside the
aforesaid order - acquitting the respondent/accused for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and convict the respondent/accused.
These Appeals coming on for hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:-
5
JUDGMENT
Criminal Appeal Nos.1561/2007, 960/2008, 961/2008 and 962/2008 are filed against the impugned judgments of acquittal of respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.Nos.7563/2003, 32585/2002, 168/2003 and 33523/2002, respectively.
2. The complainant and accused in afore stated cases are common. C.C.No.7563/2003 was filed for dishonour of cheques bearing No.255678, 255679 and 255680 issued for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.70,000/- respectively. C.C.No.32585/2002 was filed for dishonour of cheques bearing No.737669, 737670, 737671, 737672 and 737673 issued for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each. C.C.No.168/2003 was filed for dishonour of cheques bearing No.737679, 737680, 255675, 255676 and 255677 issued for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each. C.C.No.33535/2002 was filed for dishonour of cheques 6 bearing No.737674, 737675, 737676, 737677 and 737678 issued for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each.
3. The facts which are not disputed by either parties are as follows:
The complainant in the afore stated cases, namely, Applicomp (India) Limited wanted to purchase land for extension of its industrial activities. Therefore, complainant availed services of accused who identified certain extents of land belonging to one Nanjunda Reddy. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.35 lakhs to accused to pay the same to land owner, namely, Nanjunda Reddy. The accused paid a sum of Rs.5 lakh to the said Nanjunda Reddy in the form of demand draft and entered into an agreement of sale. The lands were acquired by KIADB. Therefore, the agreement was frustrated. The complainant demanded accused to return a sum of Rs.20,70,000/- after excluding a sum of Rs.5 lakh paid to Nanjunda Reddy in form of demand draft and Rs.9,50,000/- paid in cash to Nanjunda 7 Reddy and a sum of Rs.40,000/- spent for miscellaneous expenditure. The accused issued, in all, 21 cheques for the afore stated sums. On presentation, the cheques were dishonoured for want of funds in 3 cases and cheques in C.C.No.32585/2000 were dishonoured since the drawer (accused) had issued 'stop payment' instruments to her banker.
The complainant had issued undated receipts which have been tendered in evidence in the afore stated cases. The complainant had tendered photostat copies of undated receipts, whereas, accused has produced the original receipts. The complainant has not disputed execution of undated receipts. The complainant has made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that comfort receipt was issued to accused to enable him to recover money from land owner, namely, Nanjunda Reddy. The trial court on consideration of undated receipts which have not been disputed by either parties has held that the complainant had received a sum of Rs.9.30 lakh in cash from accused, in 8 full and final satisfaction of advance amount paid by complainant to accused to purchase land on behalf of complainant.
The learned counsel for complainant referring to contents of Ex.P14 dated 23.6.2001 would submit that while settling accounts, the complainant had taken into consideration a sum of Rs.8.95 lakh in relation to which a blank receipt signed by Nanjunda Reddy was given to complainant. The blank signed receipt is marked as Ex.P20.
4. The complainant has admitted the undated receipt which indicates that complainant had received a sum of Rs.9.30 lakh from accused in full and final payment of advance amount which the complainant had paid to accused to purchase the lands on behalf of complainant. The learned counsel for accused would submit that this is a comfort receipt issued by complainant to accused to enable him to recover a sum of Rs.9.30 lakh from the said Nanjunda Reddy. 9
It is difficult to conceive as to how the accused could recover a sum of Rs.9.30 lakhs from Nanjunda Reddy on the basis of comfort receipt issued by the complainant to which the aforestated Nanjunda Reddy is not a party. The complainant cannot be permitted to lead oral evidence of any oral agreement or settlement for purpose of contradicting, varying or adding or substituting terms of undated receipt issued by complainant in favour of accused.
The learned Trial Judge taking into consideration that both parties have not disputed this document, has held that whatever amount that was due by accused to complainant was paid to complainant by the accused. There was full discharge of liability. In the circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove that dishonoured cheques were issued to discharge legally recoverable debt or liability. On reconsideration of the matter, I find that learned Trial Judge has on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted accused. There 10 are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AHB