M/S Shet And Co vs M/S Corporation Tiles on 31 March, 2009

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Shet And Co vs M/S Corporation Tiles on 31 March, 2009

Bench: K.Ramanna

    ..... 

 1».r§1'/a,Vc0:éPo-R}§*i*:QN TILES
'wfo.-saxsg 3.'<:::,aaR,AvT1s4;g.NGALor2E.

_ s/0.A;.--J.P.--__R<;cHE,
 ¢ 1\_t£ANAGiNG«;_PAR'PNER,
~   -- ._ 1s§,(s.CORP€)RA'I'IGN
.f£'£LES"$VORKS.

_V ..'4'3.e-RAG? MARIA ROCHE,
  _PAEfTNER,
  M'/'s.CORPORA'i'ION TILES
 , 'gw«:3RKs.

IN THE HIGH comm' or KARNATAKA AT BANG&.5:;.(§:a?§§;--%T: ~..
DATED THIS THE 3131' DAY 0? MARCH-' 1(}9' V  
BEFORE    % "   4'

THE HOWBLEL MR.JUsTIc5a   

CRIMINAL AP?EAL.N6;2oa./3065; ~ 

BQTE EEN:

M/s.SHE'TAND   
K.S.R'AO ROAD,    L.
MANGALORE, H   _ , p 
RERBY ITS PI2oPa1VET0--g  
G.R.SHE'I',    ' ' .  '
3/o.;<.R._n:..sHE1*,%_ 

VASANTH MAHA1]-;_  _  .
MANGALCERE.' V  =    * - .. APPELLANT

{BY $21 Nirnisﬁ :§:'u§}i;é~.z§'é*,HETrY, ADV. FOR SR1
S.'VISHWA'I'JI'FH sHEfrf;'¥,~--,_m3v.;

2.1€0:iALI> _12i:3{it;-3&1,



E-$2 ARE} 3 ARE R/AT'.
SHANFHI VSHAR,

NEAR JEPPU MARKET,  A 
MANGALORE. .. REsPoNpEH_Ts.'*_T'V.

(BY SR1 PUNDIKARI ISHWAR BHAT, ADMFOR. 1:92 A£5.{5 3}.__   

tiivi-hi

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAI.,*iS__ FILEL}1'U/s.3.?é(«g3, §iR.r}j.<i."

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE  'frHE'«';iii:§<<31sg:.I=§}+rr AND"<)R'DER op
ACQUITTAL PASSED BY Trig :£ '1XLi)_[I)i:£..:'   MANGALORE,
{N CRL.A.NO.I32/Q4 D1'?-»'.2.1'/j1.2/*'9"$... Are_?°'.1v,Ct>NF:RM THE
JUEGMENT Am; ':;)T.§§f!)ER¥_§ 01? 1€io1\Wz3Cf£"1QL{V',i'PAssED BY THE
JMFCACV COU.R"F."MA:NGALQRE; -LN {3.('i'.V1*€O.'229/01 ms/4/04.
TH1$%1_vAP9§im.;.;_.Vgsme on 25/3/2009 AND
comzncgbn "F'<3Rf»ER<51§§{3:.;§q<:§$Ms;r€r"tiF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
coum' Ij§;Lx*¢EREﬁ*§?i1,é F<jL:go:§%:NG;~
'  f @GMENT

..    the appellant-complaiaant under

  Cr.P.C.. to set aside the judment and

did¢i:.__p§'  by the 2"' Addlscssions Judge,

 _Man§a1orr'.'i:a""' <::r1.A. No.132/04 dated 21.12.2004 and to

H  {E15 judgment and order of conviction and sentence

 j'AT.;§ia5sm;%L*hy the J1!zIF(.1(IV) Oourt, Mangalerc in C. C. No.229,Im

 ': "dat;:d 3.4.2004.

   



was presented for czlcashmcnt, through the  V'

banker, namciy the Indian Overseas'-83111:,   VV

Mangalorc, it Came to be dishono1i1;=f¢d1'.,_AW*ivth

Ex.P--3 datacd 24.03.2001 as   :'§..'_ h"<:':;"Vr;:i"'<*;)1'<':
the appellant hcrcin got;  .1.;£r3ti<::t:A -V-_ §Ex.P-4
through his Counsel ornv  respondents,

though notice      by them on
30.08.2001,    nor send only
reply.  unscwcd with an

cndorsczizgcnt -- not claimed'. Tixcxcfozc, a private ﬁkrd before the JMFC (IV Court}; Mangaigrc, _ Li;idc£ Section 200 C:r.P.C. 'A .ﬁ§i~dcr to prove the case, appellant hcrcsin namely G.R.Shcth as PW--1 and one Daéz. PW-2, 22 documents warn got marked as The mspondcnt N<>.2 examined himscﬂ" as cxamincd one Ramachaandm lthaic as DW-2. Two 'd»G<L'ft1II1€HfS wens: got marked as Exs.D1 & D2. __/..

valid scwicc: of noticc on respondent is tatally Appellant had pmduccd the .

mspondcnts as per Ex.Ps--8 12 that respondents have business purpose. Thcrgfqfc, jﬁhgmcnt and order of acquittal 'El, Addhﬁcmions Judge is 3 on improper appxtciaﬁongsi' and it is liable tq. Mb; : A m:[ of the aforesaid contcmriiaﬂns-, for the appellant zciiccl on the dccisicﬁi »-- bench of this Court _ in of DINESH HARAKCHAND SANKLA -vs- M/S i{us2Leu:"%'%i1,?i3;«,.%%a5 012$. mported in 2006 CRI.L.J 261, dishonouzr of cheque, person accused of _ oﬂence i.*x'._";f3&zifiiicrship ﬁxm, complaint pmna-' facic ciisclms pcfiﬁuhcr is partner and is invmived Em day-today aﬁairs {J17 Vjbusiilcss ofﬁnn, petitioner can be held guilty of oﬁcncc. 7*'. On the other hand, learned Counsc} for the rcspondcnts submitted that the appellant has not (:7 .3.

maintained the books of accounts to show that .4 Rs.-$10,000/-- was given and the respondents V' part of thc amount through thrcc cheques, 'A u have received the pay order in the Rs.1,25,000/-». That the trial ﬂit pnzsumption in favour ofthc .3p;.*»s-V§:V=:.fi'i.'~.311*t--,4v' under Section 139 of the N.1.A¢'t;bu£-- Spssions Judge rightly reversed diszxfmscd the appeal rhyf-. which is in gpfgﬁﬁﬁdcnm were rcbutted the favour of the appcﬂant, thc bmdcn of appcilant to prove his case. V in coﬁmﬁﬁon icamcd Counsel for the mguea the decision Icportcd in 2001 ,1 it has been held that issuance of _ chcquc ft}: ioan amount and not inciuding amount of '--._ i"n1;c:fcstz loan payable is a strong intrinsic circumstances _ bfV's1as;picious character. Hcncc it is pttaycd to dismiss the ' I V. agﬁcal.

8. Hcani the lcamcd Counsel 1231" both _fJ:r.--= "

perused the material piaced on T for my consideration dccisio11V.i:"s.4_§vhC§}1§#""thc Court was justified in mvcrsing the trial ccaurt and effcncc Punishablc undcrVScctio1A;_ 9 Whether the same is pexvcrsfs if

9. complainaxzt before trial that respondents had bozroweti' ﬂ:1c3'r business purpose by executing dcifiaagjd' notc, the copy of the same is V' Ex.P~€§,& Viliévrcspondents have rcp-aid part of the due a sum of Rs.2,85,00{)/~ for vfhich Issuance of Ex.P2, date anti the amount A mcnﬁnﬁszﬁi. thcrcin has mt bean seriously disputed by ":£7;:3;f£§i:deni's. Since Rcspomicnt-3 is a campany and ..__"V""m;§}pondcnts 2 and 3 are its partners, thcmforc Ex.P2 sigcd " '4 Lvby Rcspondant-2 in the capacity of mmlaging pmtncr for and on behalf of R1 and R3. The trial court has evidence of both partne s and also recorded the "

the witnesses. awn; Ronald has .denie;i K "

Rs.4,10,000/~ ﬁmn the appcnant, me. cheque-Ex.P2 for mpayteent But according to mspondentze" security to the appeiiant " borrowed amount abO1§}t".;5" repaid the same through to prove the same.

The -'hazxdwxiizing of respondent- 2, as sucli to the holder of the cheque _ u;t3der.{ ﬂ1e.Act be diawn in favour of the appeliant. vﬁnrt, _i'1 cr, fespondcnts fazied' to give any reason as to, if he amount to agxpellant, why he failed to _ get back and other papers given to the appcﬂaut In spite of servnce" cf notice, respondents neither _ amount 1101' sent any mply, but come up with the VA defence during the course of ftriai to suit then"

«' ce-nvenienee and to de~ﬁ°aud Iegﬁmatc right of appeliant. é.

The trial com': after earefui scrutiny of the evidexzgeej .. on record rightly drawn the presumption in M appellant, but the first appellate u proper appreciation of the by parties come to the copclusiqﬁ-:Rfhat" legally recoverable debt under is incorrect and illegal. Henge'; _the by setting aside the ef Sessions Judge. Judgment of the order of vi;§fT'e'¢3%::igier challenge, passed by the II Addl.Sessi0ets..Judge._ set aside. The respondents v forAAéhc...e,».ﬁence punishable unclear Section 138 W,Gf are sentenced to pay ﬁne of Rs.3,S0,(}00/- to the aypeﬂant as compensation. i.d;, and 3 to undergo SJ for 3 months. I£ the fespondents deposit the ﬁne amount the same /'"\ Sd/gi Tudcfé *mvs

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court