Karnataka High Court
M B Rudramuni vs Shankarappa Desai on 27 October, 2010
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BANGALORE DATED THI 7% DAY OF OCTOBER 2010. -- BEFORE THE HON BLE ME. JUSTICE HUL FYADIG. RAMESH: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 908/ 2009 BETWEEN: MB RUDRAMUNI ar ChO SATIONAL CHEMICAL INDUSTPIZS: NO.108, OPP: HIGHTINGALES ENGUSH SCHOOL BILEKAHALLI POST, DEVARCH IKKANABALLI _ BANNERGHATTA ROAD, ae BANGALORE-76. Bel ON . APPELLANT (BY SRI MAN UNATHA DATTANASE ETTY LAW ASSOCIATES } AND ~ | SHANERARAPFA DESAL PROPRIETOR . M/S. MALLIEARIUNA TRADERS PERTILICESS 4 PESTICIDES DEALERS o MEIN & OAD MASTLS&4 [24 RAICENE : DESTRICT ses RESPONDENT ey SRI GANG. BARAIA & BRURBUAL ASSTS.) THIS CREA 18 FILED u/3 O78 CRP. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE MIU-ADDL.CHIEF METI Oe GISTRATE, BANGALORE IN C. c. RO. idg19 / 2008 "ACQUT! ; 7 'RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 148 OF B.LACT. , - yuis c RIMINAL APPEAL COMETG ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, . THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ve =
JU DGME * This appeal is by the complainant challenging. the order - 13.16.2006 of aequittel of the respoerdent -- accused: dated passed by the XI Addi. CMM, "Bangalore, m6 . Acoording to this comnplenar, "he 3 «doing the business of Micro N utrient ' rtilizet. i the mame of Krishmaryura - Agee c benaicals, _ 'yes pondent ~ gocneed whe ig one of his. cue comers 2 and: else a dealer in Seede and Fertilizers, | used oa pmachase fertilizers, pesticides, micronutric: a i eto, | bot on cash and credit basia. Initially, | ey 'the acc cused was prompt in payment ard thereafter, he peoame dus ina . sim of Ba.3,70 252¢/-, Toward FP the eaid dae, the accused Dad issued a cl Bark, «DAO. 2007 "drawn on Thurmgabadra Gracnec Hereputa, Sindamur Tahik, Reichur District. On presentatior oo of the cheque to the Bank, # was dishonoured with a shere
-. Trewers sygrmature differs from specimen given', [mn thm 4 regard, (me comipleinant issued a eal notice to the accused be returned as a g :
payment. The notice ieei de ee: ae eas EES oh Vanek : Panes not claimed. Thereafter, a case was fled. The Trial Court 6 nw: oe " ong 3% 4 a, Does that the signature on the cheque dasa not. wily oping Bone Hence, this appeal by the.
complainant.
a
3. Heard.
4, Aeccorcing to the: accised. ine "had net issued ary cheque im commection with 'the tan néaction: The cheque which wes issued cnrlier os w eccutity, yas mis-used by the oomplairuarst.
3. Ascoriinug te the counsel appearing for the complainant, uthe issuance of cheque by the accused " Company i not in -diepute, ami therefore the question of differs ance in the signa ire on the cheque does not arise. Everi the sigriature « on game of the decumente is aleo fmund to be \ similar. When .auch being the case, the Trial Court has come te the erroneous conclusion.
4
6. It is mot in dispute that there m a business transaction between the complainant and the accused with regard te supply of fertiiwers, pesticides, micronutrients. = € According to the complainant, accused had issued as cheque towards the balance dues. Gut according to the. ac snaod the entire payment has been made and the cheque wiacn was. irity has been misused end it does mot bear the eof the accused. Ra ther: the signature fours on the cheque ia altogether forge. A The soonaes and the compiainant business. If may not be account im the regular Gane Ps dificult te seciine, those evidiens Sree + neganding payment being made or nots ot the taetance. of the. complaiz inant aa well as at the instance of the accused '0 show whether auch payment = beine meac oF: net, The "Tele Court noting the difference in signature on the chesue has opined such complamt cannot be extertained. C£ course, there could be material aspects to _ consider but the act remains that the payroernt made by the of pecused tt the complainant ia towarde the amount due. In . that vie é of the matter, the impugned order is Lable to be set Accordingly, the appeal is alowed, The impugned order in get eee. The matter is remutted to the Tmal Court for ppm 5 dia posal in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both the perties. The parties are at Hberty to. prodimce the documents for beving paid the amount, whether the. complainant is claiming excessive Armgunt of not. All she contentions urged are kept ope to urge before the Tol Court. The parties are directed to. appear before the Trial Court on 30.11.0010. Office to eerd back the records Pe