Aswatha vs R.Prasad on 11 November, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Aswatha vs R.Prasad on 11 November, 2010

Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Dated this the 11"' day of November, 2010 .0'  

Before

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUI/ADI     

Criminal Appeal 546;)' '2009 " 
Between:   2

Aswatha S/0 Mayee Gowda

56 yrs, R/a # 60, 14"' Main Road. . 
8th B Cross, Athiguppe, Vijayar:ag"ar f
Bangalore 560 040 0' '0  0'
(By Sri Rajanna, Adv.)_:0'   H

And:

R Prasad S/0:'Ran_g9.ppa--"_-«._   

50 yrs, Workiﬁg      

Staff N0.3775364=--L305, PPC"(S'C.)  0

BHEL, Mysore Road * _   

Bangalore' ;j560e.026  .,  Respondent

:'(By Sri J  /"§d»J¢)

 .A1§.p§a.1"2§"1=;.1.¢ci~0§1'n'&er 3378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

 ,,vpraying':Q set a.<.ide----__the order dated 30.5.2009 in CrE.A.642/2008 by the
 36?' Add1.'"Sess--iAon's "Judge, Bangaiore, etc.

0' " ;I'he~-Appeal coming on for Hearing this day, Court delivered the

  ﬁ51l.Owiﬁg:  §>/



JUDGMENT

Appeal is by the complainant assailing the order of the XXXVE Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore. in Crl.A 642/2008 on 30.5.2009. On the case filed by the complainant before the it it Bangalore for the offence punishable under S.;_'l.3Etof'ii'the' Instruments Act regarding dishonour of t_h"e..eheque issuedilbvy th:e"'aecused to the complainant, the trial court afterp_i.n(jjui.ry;.._conVicted_the.viaccused. In the appeal filed by the accuseth 're.lyingif.upon'the, decision in Krishna Janaradhana .tBhat.?s:7--;ase:::f:.;{AIR--.'&2008 738), holding that the existence of ai"legial_ly're_eo~té¢,¢able_:deht not a matter of presumption, the lower appellate court has res/er::1ed'thie finding of the trial court. Hovtteiter, in theease of Rangappa Vs Mohan - AIR 2010 SC' I398,' :l5'i1ﬂ:V'(::'(3l,1I'_'[ has held, as per S.l39 of the Negotiable lnstrutnehts' Aet,"_"_v»p_re'st1'n1ption is always that the cheque was issued towards aaiilegalalyh'enforceable debt and the negative onus is on the Eodispﬂrove the same.

x _An In View of the ratio laid down in the above said case, the order passed by the lower appellate court is on a wrong footing. 'to review the order at the hands of the appellate court itspelf, V. remitted to the lower appellate court for_Jdisposal_".o_?f" :§.ét'1n'eA.Vin_ accordance wit law and, if need be, to afford.popiportlrnlty. to Parties are directed to appear beforeVlthe"~.l.owerA"appellate,co£rrt~~on'29"' * L' November, 2010. The matter be wi.thi.12..three months thereafter.

Appeal is .';1'l"...(v)r\?'llr'-.-.'3-55;/r;._, Send t.he"reCt)frds. Sal;

Iifdge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court