Madhav S/O Hanumanth Naik vs Vishnu S/O Narayan Bhat, on 12 October, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Madhav S/O Hanumanth Naik vs Vishnu S/O Narayan Bhat, on 12 October, 2011

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

 L)isi.:v§%.gt: UY.'{éil'£'£ K"2mr:fada,

IN 'I"I'IE€ HIGH CC}UR'I' (JP KARNA'II/KK/X

CIRCUIT BENCPI  DH/XR \7'»/QM)

IJMH) M US 'rm:~; 193*' 13m' or ()(''I'()f3--_'E*fR 5:'   '

BEFORﬁ~W~.

H Hi 1 1<)m31.1~«: MR. J USTICIE B \?m«: 

Criminal A»M)pezii'vL.1'7.\T"cz*279v.I /'20V_1'i»  « R
Criminal Appggxi*&5.2537/ismg:

Criminal     " 

M adha\»' S/0 I *Ia%.n1,111*rah1VIi'  _é1 i'-E:__ ,-
Age: ()4 yc'2:Ij_s,*C)CC': I~'(y01= V215";-.d Merchant,
R70 323 Hull'. I"1'0f._7avar'--TaE.L1i<

.a

A {B Bhat, Advocate)

 L .ANIf);

V  .% VEs:h_.nL1 
 7VS5<>_NZ;:rayan Bhat,
  /'7\--:e:' Maj«:>:*, QCCI R}/<:>t,
%   _MI_{__/0 Manniags:*. Honeavaz',

S

...APPI{I4i.AN'I"



Tq: Honavaiy Dist: Uttara Kannada.
. . .Rf9IS P()Nj'E"}-I{§N"Ii"
(By Shri.Nai'ayan V. Yaji, Advocate}   

This Criminal Appeal is filed under ScctiQ'iii*~   '
Code of' Criminal Procedure sea/;:1<ing to  aside ijziiéigiiicrit'  i
and order ofa<:quiI:tail dated 12/()1/20:I"1"  b'\,/fifif'i1iQ.SiCSS:ii:T)I1ii'&£..
Judgct, Fast Hack C0ur'L--I, Utiata K;;inriada," ._if'xi.ai*\s.?z\..1j_, V.:.i,vn.i

CrI.A.N0.49/_"Z()()8 and etc.
cnannnaixxpneaibuL2537x201o.Q'i
BETWEEN:  

Madhav S/0 Hanumamh Naik,._ _ V V 
Age: 60 years, ()(.::C': ._R},'0';fiaii'd'Meiicijam, 1 i.
R/0 Baikur, }*I<>;_i1a\fai'      
District: UttaiaKi_aiiVna'd2i.    " V '

' ' "' 'Vi .HAPPELLANT

( By Sh ii I St; S  Eiati' A d-xi'()cat%:')" ii
:'§;\.l2;

Vishm_:_ V_
S/0 .I\§.§1i'21ya n B h at;-.

 ';':\'E<3i'I""i'\/.i8iji'C}}', QCC: E{;y'diti,"i
':2 *.'«',[\:i>" M armii  i'H.Qi*ia\z'ai',
*-'!Ei'qV:-HOi2a'§"a;:'i, 5}}-st: Uttara Kannada.

.  __ ; .i.RiffSPONDEN'Ii
(By"'E§hi*i..,_i\?a2fa}'a.n V. Yaji, Advocate}

 Criminai Appeaf is ﬂied unciar Section 378(4) of

,  Criminal Prdcedzise seeking ':0 set aside {he jiidglﬁéﬂi
--  and drder (if acquittal dated 29/'()3/3202 E  by the .}i"vIFC,

3



9,2

Honnavar in C.C.No.27'6/Z001 and respondent tor an oitenee

pttnishahfe unde1'Seetion I38 of'N.I. Act. "

'Ihe:;e appeals coming on tot' adtnissmn this"d:t§T;-";tIj€;._ Court made the I't>lI<fm/ing:

.IUI)(}I\'IIZt'§{E_"t" -

Heard the learned ec)tm:se.I Eonthe appzelI'ant._a1ttd§ the learned counsel for the 1*esponden__tJ"-..V_These "two appeals are ﬁled by the same appellant '£tgE1i'I1_S[:{h.$ $a--.n_1e respondent. 7 In the oI"--I;}teSe"appea}S,' contended that the appellant is at businessdmanarttﬁ "iS'd21tsV}o an agnetxltttrist. He is well--ae'qt1a_inted v--"w.i_thVt theV"-....1jes<p'ondent. The respondent is enggztged iHVV"§;1'1ML""{'72;1IAiVL:l'f héttatneeg; and it is the elaim ofthe appehant thatthe 1*esponde'n.t«had «availed of at hand Eoan of a total sum of 'R,$L"i.;;té§--5{)O~€);':.._ °un_der twe cheques iesued by the appellant, one f<>t'a'Stt1n o't'j__R;§v.V485€)()()z'-- and another for Rs.1,(}(},{}{){/,, The ',_frs~;t ofthese appeais pertains to the «:ii:;hnoar of the cheque for V"~V'E{V3,{13;{)0O:'~ and the second of these appeals pertains to the _.V_c§__ia§sht>tt<>t:2' tﬁeheqtie for Rs» E .€){},(}t)(}/~.

3

It is the ease Qiithe appeiiamt that when the said cheques were presented for i'eaEis21ti0iL the banI<ei" had eiidoi:sec;i_"««.._th2§zt the funds were iiistifﬁeieiit and had retumed the E1uéiiT1C.i_iii'tr.i'Si £ii"i: ' the appellant placing the I'CSp()I1(iCF'iim'OH.'I"l('i"CiCC' and (Vin-f'hiis-. instructions to re~pi'esent the eiieqties anti the.' ..sa'me; i1i2i;_\/'i'i~]g'~ been dishonoured for the sectiiidtime, two 'dii'fe.ifeii1t Cases were tiled for ()tTeiiCes puii'i~shab1'e Lihdeiﬁi"Seeti0ii H138 of the Negotiable I nstruments Act, h{:i*e--:ii.ai'"e_1f t'efei'i'ed to as the 'Act for bmgty)'.;,.7ipgéiari_a§i t1i_'e..:ei*ieq;ie'i for Rs.48,00()./--- is concerned, the waisii.t1iiiii_bei'ed asf.CC 274/2002, which was contested and ':[i'I'-i'Z1.V~'€.._1'_i'V'¢"i;i. 'e'o._tii't..__e<)iivicted the respondent under Section i3'8_0i' the Act "Z1VI1'hCi- sentenced him to pay 21 fine of I{s.5.0i{(}t)(}/'~ 2tn(ii.i(')"c:Y_vtiihtilc tine amount, Rs.48,00()/-- was :0 be pétiiéi.10»_fii'1~&?:W2iit5p.93iiaI"zt as Compensation and the i'emaining aiiizytikit of E{i's';'2;si)€)(),/« was to be appi'<>priat:ed to the State. The rQr<:ier zifcieiivictien was challenged in appeai and the appeai been aiizmsed, the present appeai is filed ehaiieiiging the .t _sa__:é"ie.

3. In the second of these appeats, the matter Ita\'ing'---beett contested, the complaint was Ltlthnatety distnissedé'a.nd-hjthve. respondent was acquitted and the1'et0re, the _.s.eet:>nd these' appeals is tiled after obtaining}, leauc of appeat

4. The learned <:(3ttnse1«"I"e1"t}~te aﬁellattt ti?'<>ttlci submit . . . ¥(4 that the primary defence of the ae_ett2fsed"~ivn 'b:etI1.V-~these cases was that the Cheques t9es_pOn'd--e--nt were not for due eonsiderationand was not ttttvtf dihsehartge ofany alleged liability. The respc)nd--ent '--¥.a_eettse'd__Vit:a_san empl()_\;'ee of a co--operative S()Ct<3t_\f ant} -%"I"1"A:4f4V1L.} Vcottéiise»-<)t"'his CI11}3i([)}"ITtCI1[7 he was tequired to 1CttI'I"tiSh se:%Lt1'ity t'()!'_'£h€'.(itI€ diSChat'g<;'. of his duties and blank 'c1heq1s1es._VhaCt»_hee_n issued in the ﬁrst instance, to which the eemptainstntkf zfppeltetttt had and it is these blank cheques '._whieh"are; sought to be misused as cheques issued for due 9 eensitieratien in Ctiseharge ofthe attteged team. This eententéen .s the 132st of these appeats wzts upheld try the appetiate court § the 'c:ett1ft"t0 wﬁ-1,e thee (3 and the trial eotitt itsellhad upheld the contention lI"tS()l\2tl' as the second cheque for Rs. l ,()O.,OOO/~ was eotieemed.

5. The leamed counsel for the E1pp€llaI1l..,El/'€}tllCli.:ViSLlbi1lll that insofat' as the presumption that a_i'ises..ttiicle-ti Seetiohi'}a-t39v.:.<§el'. the Act is ecmeemedt the law is 'well--sett.letl tl'.ati'pte.s_tt1hpttiO11 that arises as regards the legal viii which a cheque is issued, is a pl' the holder of the cheque LlI7d.K'.'}',listﬁlltjijiliiliig ilhiseliai' as the law laid down i{i1"V[% t2:;.Hlkltfaztz/'c1ycz G flegde, (2{")()8)4"";S'(7C ilsig 'e0ii~;.i¢"1=iieclti""it'"v§»as laid down by the apex court that the st--atttte_'~thah_d'ates raising of presumpticm, but it stops at tlizttzftpdi .i.t.'~d0es hot say liow the presumption clrttwn ii"sl1dtt*ld t*ebt1ttecl. l'het'eli0re, the guilt ol' the accused must he reasonable dattht and the ~:'XiSt€t3(:€ el' 9.

le>lal--ly :it_eeeA:et'22ble debt cannot be a matter of presttmption v' »_tt'i:d<:i' Se€:ti<>n L39 of the Act. It merelv raises a presttmptiim in lizzyotiz' old" the holder Ol 21 cheque that the same has been issued Z \-J in discharge of any debt or other liability and the said decision is apparently sought to be pressed into service in }1.:)'idi;2.g~V.ivn f°avc>t11' of the accused. ItI<)wever./ this has been 1'exjiew'ed Supreme Cotlrt in 21 later judgment b3/"a----three~judg<3beheh, 037.. the apex Court in RC'?l7g{.l][?/T76! VS. /R 0' ..§7C'Vn wherein the Supreme Court has Iic1t i*us t'<>lI(m{si=Au "I J. In //'Q/71' ()f'i17eA'e LAY.'¥"tt(-'[_\'!7\f1'('3';-ttlift'"iﬁt/::"1Tt;{f'X7}f(?!'7/ u'/if/2 //7c /'c2.s'/70m/cnI--e!a//t27(m/ IZ7_c;_/ "I;/--'7Ve '[u?I'<:I:§'1»/Iﬁﬁlv/(}f'i'V...:{?"é}l7c/(I/(?d /9; Sec'/fol? /£l"(»',i:/57".? (ul()1e.','tits://(:':%z'/'rift?/I!VgttfV:}'77(2 5.x'/Is'/e/7«;'e 0/' u /egcI_[.7_t'*' 3%'/~31/__{2z::_*<az;/Vt,/7/'c> -Q7' ;"{k1/7:!'/1'/y:_ 1' 'r; /1751! G_\'I('i'?/_ //'yr:

/.f'7'7])Z!(Q'/?C"~.:§] c)»'>.<,'t;

' ﬁzz/t:<t2'1:7,\"--.i'}A7'syttitzz ./e;'I'7(lf'(//?(I!? Bhal _(.xtz.I/9m) "tL?~t*:':E>!ﬁ{)}'l'L%'E,' I/2;':.'V»'VVt"/t)c?.$' 170/ in c1I?_,\~* H'(1}«' «:'u,s'l c2'('}"2.{/7/"0";7 eelr*r:3f§'<_3tti'f:_c z.'/are/V,\'f()i7 in Mm! (.'(I.\'<* .s';'1~2:;'<2 ii was /'m.§':.?z1' onxfxlzca'gut'c{f?t'.»t.ft41<,'i;x' (i/'?(/ ei'/f'{'Z!/'E35/(!i?L'L'.'£ //tclwm. A. :tz<2Kc;*u'.VI;?..V/!7e'if/ct:/t{:z;2.s'.vI/ﬁx; ix ({fvL'(IZ!I'.\'(' in 2/74' mz/2/re 0/}:

Vur:<.:":;'{f{?.£r{:i!é'!!?[{f ,m~¢»'.;«sz,v;--;;;--:ion mm' if A upm In the ci£'c1:.%'€c2' 10 t " ~. _V f(§VIiS'(<'.' cs[ &£:3fe;24*e w!'1ez'e.fn the c.>;zIs'!em'e 0}" a; /eg.::/1;' e;7f:>g"c'gjtzHis"»:t5ei9i or Xizxsﬁiiilju mi? /742 c<mI:3.s'.fecZ Hm:*m*er. :z7e;;.«.;1a}«; 5} Hz; c,f()3M7f iimi Ihere is' an ixvizfazr' ;3z*cas'z;m;2i;'{m ' 'L$f!"I:z'7;C>;-7_fe11~'()E,4'F".¥ the ;:'m27;9Zaiz7c:n!. f{ccI;'0n [39 sgffhe C? :75: an ; 5&2???/21:' :7}'z: reve1<s'e {mass daztzxe tins! hm' f7ec:uV2 z'm'Zz/z;fez:/ in _ifé¢;z**?i?e:t'c:;::'e (3,? 5.5% ."egi.s*Xgzi§:>e 5)/}j'ec{i't*e of z"i?2fpz*:2w';2g {P22 :'?'é?é??f/??a';fZi}»' of'z?egr;!:'5zx'3fe ii'?,\'!5'2:'i?'?{*fiix. W9?/e §Iez:f;k;z? /353* 0;" ./ﬁe gitue' .x;2ac'i,2'ie.s' (2 .2'/m;/.{g" o:I'I'i'i???.}'?§§/g :'c*:z2ect«'}' in ;'w'::zi:2s2 (:2 £525? 6 zfi.'w'7:);7mz1' O/'C/?L"(]I,!L'.x'. {fie re/71/;'i:i/7/E? ;;>z'e.\'z/172pfim2 zzmfcr S1>c'I1'{)z7 ['39 is 5: ¢!m'i<'e in ;2;'m'w'2! am:/2:6 (,/c'/({}' in X/Ia' cozu'.s:<ﬁ (gt/'" !fii';gc:lfz)1'2. I[(m'm*ei'. ii mz15;! be i'L?}'??8i?7/3c'I'L"'c/ zf2<zf";??'c. "'. (2[fé;7cc iﬁude 'f)Zli'?1..\'/7(I/?/L' /7,12 fS'ecIim7 f_>'.»'§ cw": !'3:,-£1f7:*?i'<.1.! "--.. ' ' cVfc.s'c;*i/705$ as :1 /'cg!//(/I<)z'_\> 0/fiezvce xi.r2cc2 /he /7c_).zr_;_*z¢_'fI;=.;; V(;f c7z dvec/2V/e is /(ll'(g7é?/V3/y' in live naizzrc u Z*'i':ti/ i.v;m_ag_z7s'u'2o_s'c' i172/Jaw' is zzxzza//y co/zfincd /0 /he j)I'i'?'(!i€ .?:)é'i7'7ic'.$':}.>'?3;(D./Efzyf in». A C'(1/2?/'iIc'i'(,'i('1/ ii'(Ii?.\'(!L'ii()}?.\'. I/gfx-r._z_c'f2 (I j'x«;:w?2.':'z'r2. -T/E9' 'faxvz of ; D/'()/mI'Im;m/i!,1' x/me//d .%'lzi<uic.V ".4/26 L'(}iz.s'_I/'MTIIOI7 _<zm/ ix/2/W]?/waxion 627" ,--110w'/'.ve ---wiz2};»a 'Vt-1/__£III.\'U.S' "e.w.4z'...V"//iv accz/xvd/iV1'¢féz9:Vfcz17/ c:zix--m.3"()I_V /Igc <3,\';9c%£"r<5cilu I0 ,di_x'ci/7c/1'ge an zmdz//y /2/lg/7 .s'/arm/urd "05 p)'m)ff V1'~13":Zg'c__.V:1/2,s'e:7w <2/' ca/77/7e///'n 2{« :,'.jf:(.\'Vl1i/ii('(.l;:'i()}'7f§X' _:'g?c»x»cs;j:i,'a*.1ﬁzgzzis' 7:'/c:1z/,\'c.x' 1/5':/:1//ﬂy il7'I])().S _G vc.TP"?~(f\»'I#{?_i7:li617")/%.152/H/"J§'f2 (~;z4g,.f'2:r)i a ./;c'2V/".3":/c1.s'i1*e /72;/'c/:2/7. /{ee])izV¢7g. /.l7}':i,s'V;"(:I;7 (1V;§é'i'//Uzi;/'$;).$'ifi()I/I that w/van an {VIVVC/"'C':'é'('xVXV>£4)"(,? /(').:§:',:«v'V(V"z'?Zi:'/"~,t{%i' I2)/'c'.s".g'.'IV/iéj3/'fm7 um/c/' Sec/fw2 i3'). 172;: 5-g~;:ma'm5;/';§2';y;;>(g/j}b;;_}":;smg'so is i/mi of ';2repnz7c/mm/z:'c» (ff'[)i"£}k/7(!'l(?i/fI.;L'~X'i . '}l:r]?L',.?.'«£?,:7"'€A;'f_jL?! {ff/it' zz<'c'zrwc.X ix ({/7/(' lo 1*a1'.s't' :7: 'z.;>:'e;/M/3/2: C; L?/éizbe myicﬁi £'I"c'<!/(*.'s,' (fuzz/>I,s' czfmzzi //79 é'.\'f.'x'f{f!7{'L' V aﬂcz .];ffJ£I//_':' £5;;7,'£--i*..z74ic':1/ﬁe def): an' /fzz/1i!z'{:*, I/7:» /);'(2.\'<*<,'i!fim/2 av? We znzéi' :f;1z'2.j'£:--f/4'.':<§.x' clan'/ice?' in {/38 c'i/a/z'm2,s'. ft'/Kc' :1«:*c:zxc'cf cw: 2'4/'xiv z'~"iais; .%'Z.»{z'?f??fiI(%c/2} 37;; 11% m:2¢2/):'aim:zzi {:7 <2z'c!w~ {£3 1"'{:'z',K_5'.é"."'>\Z-»!'<L"/? 5: cicifiéswe (Md 5! is c'(>m"¢%i:>¢;!?z'e:% /ha! in xa2:¢2:% .;'aés,.g:,ax' Ike a:c:'z,;x4%af meg' no; neeci in cu./'cizz<'cf cw'ciw7w {sf fvigﬁ,/hex' smve. "

6 6' He xmtrld further submit that the defence of the' accused, as aforesaid, was held to have been estah41i..she_dby reierence to a stray admission in cross CX£1117iI1£tti()_I".ﬂ_ xx/}ii"c.1'7"*-- '7to_' the effect that the society in which the s1ect1s'ed e1ii';i>v1_eyehd V was in the habit of obtaining sigiedWchcqttes,'w,it!itt>'ut'~the. pat'ticuIa1's being ﬁhed in, 21s'--v..a"'*:1121tte1"not .c[<)"m'sVeV 1"1'0m its' employees and as a sec..t_1rity.=hf'e1"'t.he due discharge of their duties, which entailed ent1'tIdstm:53ht i)i'_--f7u1'1ds~.(_>t7 the s0c%* and therefote, t1tis2_'VI1a«§;' ag be-e11§admi't'ted '~hy.I.he app«"1tant, it could not be said th_at'i:.tlt1;§3\t'e W2ts_Vti'~].Vegzi'i"i7iab'§1ity G1' which the cheques had been i_ssL1Vedf;_Lie.wet:Id___su.h1f:t1* that ﬁ'()1t1 a reading of' the law that laid {i*<>\i?';1'i7y."E?:ﬂ apex court in RC1?/'7(*§(.I/'?[)C'{'.'>' case, tt1e..:=e{ xtx/:§~:a a htirdm utst ea: the i'i;3E3p()HdCI"1E~£':CCUS€3(i to tender «.1 ' pd':-3i.ti\t'--e_ m:t.1:s"-<__.~ ts :'e;:a1'cis the zthsettec of such ieeai iiabihty. 17m:"'thc 1e;"f'g_:t>:'{ hat the e><aminati<m--in-- chief of the appelizmt eettitn 1:0: haxre hzen ignored white placing; rehanee en a stray _ a':.{,t:te§.:;es§<,~.:2 he the eeurse of c:'0ss~exatminatieet which s<>ug§;ht __ti:> he read eat {}fC()E1it3Xt, in hotdihg that there is ::m a.dm%ssien 2 as to the cheques in question liaving been issued as ;s;e::uritv lot' the due clischarge of duties of the zusettsecl and not in <_:ivi'~s;e"h;ti'ge olzmy alleged loan. This, according to the lC2tI"!1C(_l''C'--()tItléclli : glaring error committed by the e(>t11't_«7:b'el0.w in hQld'ing_; that_fthev.. presuinption under Section l3') of the Aet waistrehutte¢;li"by" rel'eren<:e to the alleged a1dmissioi'i».in" t--a:1'c)ss~e;-mininéitinn.

7. While the le211'1ie--dle<3t1'ns;Cflilib?"the»i;esp0ndent--2tecused on the other liatndéjﬁ' wou1;;1"s;%:ei<; '{(.)i_':;«I,.l;£'}l;V_ll'yi' aged' reasoning oi' the Courts lvelcm/"'in««._ vl'l€1"."(i)i'_t3l"i <r>_l7..__th~eV ::}_;c«;;s::;:', in holding that the pi'estt1n}?a't'i(')'i'. .,tin1;lei* S:i€C'l.l(i5I1, l'-39 isi"éi"1'eil7t1ttz1ble presuinption and as laid d'ovvn_ hyﬁ the'fanex_ie3t1..:~'t in /€cmg::zp;9a'.s* case itself, it inay not be iteeesVs;2*t:'--'y 'lk>i'"'::tn accused to tender evidence by °ente':"'ing3-f'i'nt6._the witness box, it' on the basis of material tpr<3V<i't:eed.ih--§gjlitheeomplainant himgelfi, it is posgible to draw an inlei"en<;:e__'ilirein a pl'Cp{)f'l(l€3I'€:I1Cf2 of probabilities./. as would be .i,the.h<:_ase in the present matter on l"1d.I'1(l§ as it is not in dispute

-- th'::tiithei'e is 2': clear admission on the pairt of the appellant T» 3 complainant to the ellect that the sneicty indeed had at practice of obtaining blank cheques from its exnplnyees an_4clV~.l't<:ne.e.

would submit that the appeals be dlslnissed.

8. On the ubox/e contenti0n§,,, itﬂs %;:v'i{_le'nAt"t.l1é1t*i.,ll' ll3:.<3.' accused is able to raise at pr0b'ab.le clel'enc'e) wl'u'cl'1.c_reates :1 doubt insoﬁu' the existence of all'l-::vga--l.l}t' recL;~vevrable? debt or liability, the prosecution xi'l~.*%§* .l.1u.l x'e'l--ifdn.Ac'e--,, 0l'c0Lu'se, can be placed on 1nate1"i_2il's.__sub?nlittedl;by c(31npl"21i1t2111t himsell' in order to 1'21is;c"'siie_lt"a-dVetl'cnc.e: "~~_ll'\lt'llCjCVVl_flCﬂCC of the appellants in ll"1€S(?"'C'€t§/i'S:7§S n6" ":5 "--._t'l-161? ":i1:'cl"lexp1'ess statements made ixtstufar 5:3 the Vissuance"efl'e.l1eques towaucls the loan and the aceus;e.d»respn'ndentVh21V'*E.11g'.issued cheques to cliseltztlge this.

""lIl1e'n;é .lSl»-it further statement to the ecllect that the saune pi'eS'eVnVt'ed:'t'fb.:*' realisation and when it was d%sh<>n0ut'ed lbr the ﬁrsgt .t_'i'nie.~"'the same was re~presented on the instructiuns of ._the;zfespdnclent -- accused 'l"his has not been denied in cross»- e":x:a2n:nati<>n by the accused respondent in the course cal 5 ez'0ss~exa11nination. llowever, a statement has been elicited from the complainant, to the ell/eet that the society w::~:.s;"i-:1' the habit 0 1° obtaining blank cheques t}'om its etnpltnjeies t)l'tf>h"£1thljji--'*;--e ' in order to secure the cliseltarge of l.,l'1'Cli'-.LlLItl3;'S e4S}5e.e4iz1lVly,:'«. in relation to llnaneial transactions ancl to 'secure, the. against any llnaneial loss that"»_'ﬂay he»att1=ih.t_xtah.le to the employees. This does .;l(;tt._ explaintliée ls:-2_t1a1"lee (if "two blank cheques by the accused ill" that it/e1':E ln(.lee--<;l_<a_.7del'enee which ,.-

could be accept'edl.};l lie 'p}--.t"epofide19'2tz;t_ee '()5---;>1't)habilities and the material cltuettttltettfg w7l1'iel1":i_1;t.},t"'he l'el'e1'1*e(l to by the accused would iteqttltfe tt;«"l72:_ M s'u<_:l"-..a_ degree, that raise a clear doubt about the "l§eal">lillt}3';* '"'l.'Alti»s "eir_>es not presttpposge that a stray atcll11.i«s§§i<>1t~ in lCi'~05vS*C'>§L1H]lllE1tlOi'1 woulcl be :~;tn"l?eient to dl.Sc'hearg,e't~l;te.,htn:den. Ultimately, it W()Lil(l be a matter for the e<5;n*t'; on the'j_ sherit of any such stand, to decide W'l'2Ctlt<3t' the '._ps'ep0n«:lefenee of probabilities insular as the ﬁndings in §'av0ut* V"-Qt7.the"_aeet;se<§ pyesent in a ggh/en ease, En the present ease on hahd, this <:<>tzrt \/'v't')til€'l have no hesitation in lt<>ldin§_; that a stz*a}» E admission CXU'£iCIC(i ii*0m the appeiiant vis~ét--\/'is the express statements made in e><;2miinati<>ii--in~chieI, to Ci€'Ci£1I"L".'i.i1i,i¥.'_the cheques in question were issued in discharge of21A"iE>anétnid'-the: ' same were presented to the banker of ti"1'C--é'1CCLi_SCd4£iii(i'ti1C'vS€¥t'I]1C»., lint/i115, been returned dishonoured \Ivei*e'--_i'e--pi'esemed «. ()i1«',,i°t.i1ei'. instructions of the accused. ii'iT(':*S_Cii':~:fatCmCi1'[Silgiﬁxc i"t()'tiiiI1(iCCd been denied in ci'c)ss:-exaininzition. :4WVi.ii(,_"i1 wash" it priinary requirement, in thei'eafter set'tii;igi.tip:a deVf'e'n.f(_:e__1§ii21t the cheques were issued irf LiTcj-'iiii'Stii'.inE§i£1'f1C€+iii()ﬂi"iii'i€------£tCCL1S€d joining the einpiov of the §or:_iVetyi an.di"*it .iSi"tiM)5ifC cheques, to which the ./ appellant had £1CC'CS«.$ M/chi'cvhi"'h.a\re been misused, which was the ceroliaiy that would iioiw ii'i*:>.in the defence that is scJLig_;iit to be _ set Lift: in that \?i"e.w ofthe matter, both the cciurts below have 0\;;{ei'¥Q0}<,ed.these_ giaring circumstances in holding that the p1;i2.SLiI1;I}')1iit)I'1*i.:t3Y}.€i€I' Section I39 stood rehutted in the manner as icstated a~hmje.

Hence, the present appeais are aihiwed. The iinpuggned iticiginents are set aside. The respondent in the iiiI'S}i 0? these 2

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court