M K N Nair vs Lt Col N P Nair on 12 November, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

M K N Nair vs Lt Col N P Nair on 12 November, 2008

Bench: S.R.Bannurmath

 

. (BY ms F"- <3§ v'AssoC1ATEs,ADvs.)

 ._ 'A§3VOCJATE FOR THE PETR. PRAYXNG TRAT THIS HONBLE
  'GOSH'? MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.10--
 , '1-O~"'2000 PASSED BY THE XIX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
 "BANGALORE CITY, IN CI?L.A,184,f97 85 THE JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH come? OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE} 

SATED THIS THE 12% DAY OF NC)VEM8ER   A' 
BEFORE   H F.

THE HON'BLE MR, JUSTICE 33?.  
CRIMINAL REVISION PE'Fi'i'I0'I'x§N().996I2OGOV _ " 

BETWEEN:

1 M K N NAIR _
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS A
S/() LATE P.K.N.I\IAIR--_  _     
No.s;142,JUNC:1'10N MAIN man   
SALEM-636 904    ..  "
 ._  '  '  PETITIONER

1:1'. COL. NF; NAXR

Ts/Q..LLATE C.N.Pﬁ~N--'£CKER

 r:o.27:,sapcR0ss

 " z>o':~4;LLIR%.2rm_s*rAGE

 BAN.c:xALO§e§;~a6o 071

   ...REsPoNm:N'r

zlici-xii

V' »_ T';-IIS CRL.R.P. is WLED U/S. 397, 401 OF C'.R.P.C. BY THE

 



lfM3llIA

hand lead and in this regard, he had executed A4

demand promissory note and considerau'on7 : '

dated 19.9.1991; that he had agweed   

ioan with interest in installments '"0:  the

refund in lumpsum and in  he_ih_ad~~;v'iss'ued
nine cheques drawn  efvhxdizi; '¢§;P;-'

Bangalore. It is alleged 'by   that the

first cheque foe  on 15.9.1991
and the:e§3$te1j;*  K   paid a sum of
Rs.1,50;{_)OQ,' ._ 'there was balance of

Rs.12,.37',(A)@(4_)'/e---.V e:r%1sdsm¢s%%f§ase of the complainant that

 V.inspite:' "of  demand for repayment of loan

¥. a;An:o11nt,._v»vA 'sag accused did not respond, the

piesented the cheques on 4.6.1993, but all

~were dishenoﬁred with an endorsement of insuﬁiciency

 'u..(.a;t' 1111"-rd.  such, on 12.6.1993, the complainant issued

 notice by regstered post calling upon the

h  V  A» " to make the payment good. On receipt of the

E''"

 



..5..

ageement Ex.P-3, Promissory note and conside1§21tio1i'vv.4

receipt EXP-4 and cheques in question  "

the compiainant from the acc13.sed"'n--nd'ejzj   

coercion in the background    " of 

complainant was working under i~.?<1e accused
service came to be  terméiiéteéié, "me cotixpiainant
intended to take revenge  this regard,

by using   the

accused, _.h_t: cheques and also make
some pVé3.yn3ents;"'V  to the accused, as the

pressuare of'1;he_  in demanding the money

  §ncreas€'u"1,,_ he in fact, had intimated the

 Bank for stop payment and mspite

of   presentation of the cheques and

  of the same, in the facts and

 I  of the case, does not constitute any

 



-7-

gaunt} of they being minor conwadictions;-*  .

Courts below have erroneously p].ace<§1 the of  K V'

proof of the entire transaction on:":.the_'_' 7-if

violating the basic ruie that "then 
prove the case against ,.t.1.1e  -teaseonable
doubt. It is submitted"   of the
material event  the  by the

complainant;   ':t;t1e_ accused lodging a

complaijot  has materially aﬁected the

case of ttieaaccused  resulted in iliegal and

 unjust 'co13vicVtit;z1_:;ithat the Courts below have blindly

 Kt1f1e:"docL1ments produced by the compiainant

tétithotit   the veracity of the same in the light

V of the"'arg;,fttt:I::e'i1ts of the accused. On these among other

, H  "'-----g:;:~o1LI1§1S,VV'it is contended that the impug1ed judgment of

.j_tté'co'11§}iction by the trial Court and afﬁnned by the

  '  " Court are Iiabie to be set aside.

é/W  

 



 :{3Ci"~.1t'§21) t1iat"'the High Court in exercise of its

ievieioiiaj'-._};;:$wer.s should not interfere with the

"   proved that the Courts below committee} an
A    fact or law in arriving at the conclusion and

  v..1_1I_¥};SSS any glaring defect in procedure or manifest

- 3 -
7. On the other hand, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent] compiainant argued in

support of his case as well as the ﬁndings of the below.

8. At the outset, it is 'V revisional power of this Court 401 Cr.P.C is limited. It Visﬁwen seteedtj 'awhile exercising the revisional gtirieiiictiorx, tiiough the juzvisdictjoritormjst Wi(.ie"'eVnough, but it has its lilrlitatiofisr «. It in the case of S.P.S. Jayarxzt and another (AIR cooe!.§r1e:1t of fact recorded by the Courts below ﬁ,A./ -13- lead any rebuttal evidence before the Ceurts -.4 V to be kept in mind that the aceueed has not sig1at1:e:es en the cheques execavtien-1' deeuments in this regard. The enlyttieiientte 1 the accused in this regard is 1,'.

complaint said to have e the Pondicherry Police and tactics of dmeseiv It is also to be noted tn the absence of the accﬁeed ~A »Th'tte§-.....e11t3"ter of the document) stepping ethte" speak1ng' about it, this <evide'nt:e has been rightly rejected by the otherwise, from the evidence and ef the Courts below, it is clwr that ' eifort en the part of the accused to ' I115 liability. ge"

.11..

10. I have gone through the * 2 pointed out by the learned counsel and I agr_ee- Courts below that they are minor; name deb:

go to the root of the ease. Itis to ikept it under Section 139 of the Negeﬁable Inet;ifuri1etitsVV:Act, there is a suong :« "of the complainant it is show that either there was ii';jQ"vS1.1.(:3:31 ﬂ:oneta1fy".tI'ansaetion between himself .e.1:tci 'oreliat the cheques were not isslied for' legally enforceable debt or liability?' 'No the said presumption is '~ }31f€SuiTl1p$Ii9I1 but on the face of the admission of issuing of these cheques under his executing the demand promissory note and tlievviireeeipt as well as the agreement and in the "absence of any material evidence that the same was liexeicuted under duress or coercion, I find that the '4 below were justified in holding that the itlitial 5/-/1' -13- raised by the petitioner-accused and as such, the revision petition being devoid of merits is ]iable_4vt(V;)"-4.156. rejectad and the same is rejected aﬁirmirlg thc-'_:_ cf conviction and the sentence b}?"ﬂ'2€é_jv below.

bb %%%%

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court