M/S Alvares And Thomas vs Mrs Leelavathi on 18 August, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Alvares And Thomas vs Mrs Leelavathi on 18 August, 2010

Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 
BANGALORE '

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST?   _

BEFORE Q   A
THE HON'BLE 
CRIMINAL AP11§gx_L     VA
BETWEEN:      L

M/s.A1vares & Th0mas_,:" _ '_  V
A registered partnership firm   
having its RegdA.'-Office"at* - if
Alvares Cen_t1'e; Istnthborg = 
Manga10re+5''?5G'0_5*5'. '' ' L'

Represented its  Pa'rtI1 'er;"

S'~.Ag¢r'e*«Mai0:'.
D/0 late 1<.s;'a,m;Tes,ee _   T
R/0 Nanthoor Cros's=,," _ V V.
Mangalore'.-. '    "APPELLANT

Mrsgﬁleleri 1AiV;'var_«e

 V.  .,  S,ri;.K;T.AppaKR a0"'& Sri.K.Dhiraj Kumar, Advs.)

Mrs.Lge1a;:2a:hi,
W/0.. Srinivas,

----  .. Age: 4-2 years, Proprietrix,
 _MI'S.. Mangala Granites,
 No;I484, 11"' Main, 4"' 'B' Cross,
 Mahalaxmipuram, Bangalore-560086. "RESPONDENT

(By Sri.G.S.Pati1,, Adv. (absent)) This Criminal Appeal is filed under Sectionhi.:_37_8 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgement and side: "dt:;4.2.,08 passed by the III Addl. Dist. & Sessions_.§'__Ji1dgfe~,--._ Mangalore in Cr.Appeal No.l72/O7 and to.__ cio11.ﬁimc* the' judgment and sentence of the V Mang-alore;i.D.,K.,V in . ,4 C.C.No.203l/04 dt.l9.7.07, thereby coin"'»'ivcti_ng'th_e'--re.sp'onde:f1t ;

for the offence p/u/s. 138 of N.I.Act;-A This Criminal Appeal chirsihg on isrhsiaiingiiyhis day, the Court delivered the folloyving:i""' -

" ' This apppeial, is coiinplainantilassailing the order passed by? Sessions Judge, Mangalore, in Crl.A:l_\lo.l72/d'?:'dated,44l%;2:i'GS. t 5 -. The icoinplaiinarit has filed a case against the accused, l3li8liiiiof the Negotiable Instruments Act, for ._ cheque amounting to Rs.2,56,000/--, which was isisued'---V:tow"ards the balance consideration of the shipment it .. ii sieryiceis availed from the complainant for import and export of 'granite blocks. According to the complainant, out of i Rs.5,56,000/--, the accused has paid Rs.3,00,000/-- by way of V DD. and towards the balance ?amount/ cheque drawn on State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Rajajinagar, Bangalore was issued, which came to be dishonoured for 'insuff1cient,_funds'. Accordingly, after issuance of legal notice, the to be filed. The trial Court, having; noted the 'co-ntcntion of the" . parties and the stand taken by the accused: that thel'pchetVj1i'ueV':"was issued only as a security tow-ard~s_p the"transaction':.bet*ween the C complainant and the :accused,""ha._s~ re»fe'rredaito*~Exl.Pl6 dated 25.2.05, wherein it is payment made by the accuscdlfor' Rsd5_6,G0ii/~ against the cheque issued-_ and to the filing of the case, the accusedllha.smadle- of Rs.56,000/~, which clearly shows t1ia't~ cheque" "as-«issued towards a legally enforceable debt, C a. accused for the offence punishable under of N.I.Act and also sentenced to pay a fine of R32 _ lakhs,v._.ii'1 default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period C ofsix months. As against the said order, in the appeal filed, the appellate Court, on the ground that no resolution is produced to show that the complainant is authorised to ﬁle the complaint W.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court