Karnataka High Court
Lokmanya Co-Op Credit Society Ltd vs Vinod Ramachandra Ghatge on 10 December, 2010
Author: K.Govindarajulu
Bench: K.Govindarajulu
2 m:f<3L2m'"1N<;; 'rm*«: :~::V&:s;;><'Mmm:::N':',»;Mf<fUSm) f9(]}R <f:¥:}':i5:'§N«§:'Ti&?:--.-- E'5iL};'§§.E3§§ {Li}? NIL AC]"Z'I BAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE F'{§:LLC}?:'{E?é'(§i{T.. TE-{IS CREMINAL APPEAL <:<>:v:::~s;} <:>f¢:~*:>;'«t: fséiis Junsnmlfir Compiainant in me of J.M.F.C., Belgaum is
2. Campiaénaryz society, it contends thsaf .f;{);* 2:?§VVV}L0an and loan of Rs. 1,00,v€}Q_O: 1997. Accused executefi ._ including loan documerfi _2:s.Vg":*_eé«:Vi' t0: "péL}* 20"/?;p.ax The complainant has ,,11§:ain:ained" =.,$epa,:r*ate account in regard to loan trar:sa<J.;iOn.uSG? _a<:<:ordir1g to the foam transaction, there }§§.94§834/--. In such situation, in the 'Vmentuh z<:¥'fa 21303; the accused has issued the cheque:
".j;'.:>x%ra'TL:*.v;1s ::e:paj;mer:t sf man cf {E16 appefiam: in f8.V€)LI£I" of <:'$:>:r1p1ainant. It was prssanted in thee bank it *,I*ét"ur::«::~d Lgngsaici far notiea issueé Cm 18.012003 there beérzg 13:3 g3a}r:::€r::. Th::~reaf:€:*w23,rds Cgmpiaint £3 fflesé »*'e,,.»«»-»"
'3 3 séeking for initiation of the accused under Sec€i01: _ '£38 0fN.I. Act, 3: Presence 0;' the ac<:use<:i~~:'$__sec:§1r:e€§'.'=F?;\7\§'; V examined. EXPEI is 19.8 are markzéd.
has held that; after 2%: of.V'Eh€'.¢:$<pi19}:"€)f ighe Iimitatian the case iS;...ffl€d,»-"S€:) ;'--thfi ::iV9i1"v$L:i€ being barred} the criminai <:<3'i,iV1'_1;"£:'aIjf;'3g§t _'é1f¥_te1fii:%.in the same. This conch1sio_r1. 1:S-based»upoI1 a°'_t.erm":of repayment sf lean in 3 ye§gf$,:_««sc3;"§V'f39?T_ :Q "2QC§O"he.VE1as calculated. _ Iir'i ':§':ve=__I:ight..V§f.,_§E;--e{above} heard both sides. Learned 2§§d..v4écai<~:>.f<§'r.f:iVi.é"'23,f§f:$e1}ant submits that issue of the cigiéque as "'ihd${tV'Of fhe accused is not disputed; the a¢<;:1;scd Eé:asA'1a;Qt entered the witness bax. Trazzsactien :'§:':_:gv..__if§'1"e'V..iedger are not challenged. So, the . fi:1c§i§1"g <3'? 's:}*:éi Earned tried judge is in correci and East:
tide payment towards the loan amount is the . .'.::fi'fiéfié'. ii is :15): iaksn iais ascsuni. S30 pray far "~ VVVa:VE'§"a:/2='i:':g Sf ihe appeal ;<*igd¢,;§o«»-""
S. In reply it is submitted that this eeutt§:'t,_.et'n§? cemteeteti case has believeei the defence vers§'{§'t1<--.ef.._tti:: limitation. Place reliance cm Cr}. Appeal "
and order dated 01.09.2008.
6' In the light: of tor consideration is as uneiet: V' .
Whether the4"aeqtt'ittt;§t};:' by the learned u V'
7. Vtnatetiiai evidence positively cheque being that of the acetisefl is hit is for the accused to explain whyfit is .is'V:3ue4_d" ,'*"he has not at all entered into *ihe tart:tn;beseVvt.box. There being mandate under Section eft. "Further, the subject of limitation is a «:{Lte'ettVet1 attfi lava The person who submits that debt is 'batted by limitation as to enter the witness hex. A V't:%tE':e_:'t%;'ise it beeomee e eonetuetett wttheut tee}: trite the "'.VVS.»}./E_;f--£§'£31;tf1§if1g eiteutrtetattee the teetrtted trial jtzége D ceneluded and states that in 1997, the loan is g,:i._ven and it is net repaid. In this precese completely"ff:;r:§§e{fs,¢ how Rs.1,Q€}/,€}C1G/- has became Rsf94,GGO;/'§::"a::A::iVV: V' Sex payment ':9 the accountV-es;9--ass'erted":»'i:y' '-29i:1eHg complainant is pmbabalisede of leaned trial judge; in disbelie\>fi:1g {he ground Qf iimitatien is :':.<gt justifieei; In the lightof theigiéaeviefi is passed:
Appeai is directed to pay a sum of amount exercising power Seetiofe: JCr.P.C, he is aiso directed to 1/::»»14<.;1e':<"g:> S.£.V"f0_:rVe period of .30 days , on the failure to ;:;ay.'tuhe_};§;Qne§-ivin a period of 3 months, he shed} suffer Q15VfiL;n£S%i§i:1.e1i:§:'inch3.::i£::g the corporeal punishment. 3333532