Sri Ningegowda S/O Late Ningegowda vs Sri Y H Hanumantha S/O Late Hanumaiah on 29 March, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Ningegowda S/O Late Ningegowda vs Sri Y H Hanumantha S/O Late Hanumaiah on 29 March, 2012

Equivalent citations: 2012 ACD 1039 (KAR), (2012) 113 ALLINDCAS 884 (KAR), 2012 (3) AIR KAR R 838, 2012 (77) ACC (SOC) 41 (KAR)

Bench: V.Jagannathan

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HICS}-.'.'V"C_OURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KP5Pl'\?P.TP..KP. AT BA.NG2'23}QRE
DATED THIS THE zeﬂcmx $3 MARCH; 251?; v
BEFQRE O O

THE HOH'BLE xa.JusTIcEO§["Jg§Ama§iHg§7OO?

CRIMTEAL REvIsIeN PETITI@EOEQg8§ﬁOf'2GQ§'OVO

BET§tI:s§EN :

SRI NINGEGOWDA Vaxg _

s/0 LATE N:NGEsowDA*~O-'

AGED ABGUT 53 YEARS ._ , u 7: -g,»

R/O cHIEKAszApA3AHAL::=?:zLg3g'-;'

KASABA HGBLI' 2.' '1 :--~ ~_-c«-,
PAmDAvAPUgA'?A3gK ';_O. ;*gv g

HARDER DIS$R$CT."»_V A:*¥ ',' ...PETITIQNER

gay 33%} Kééiwﬁx 3, ﬁééscgfz FOR
 55221.: ' vmgzggsm, Anvoczscm 3

AND:

.._..........

._.sRI.x H'HANUMﬁN?ﬁA_
3 "Sﬁgagﬁfﬁ HEEUMALEH
<'A9En_A3c§T,45_2EARs

'RiQ.22§:zUR«v:LLAGE

KOTERTHI.HDBLI

,q, ﬁANﬁ¥A_wAL§K AND szsrazcr. ...RESPGNDENT

gB$7saI: L RAJA, AEVOCATE;

- _ _ THIS CRIMINAL REVISIGN PETITIQN' :5 FILEE
an -}UNDER szcrrox 397 REAB wzrg SECTION' 431 03
%"Ou§31P.c. PRAYING TQ SET A5I§E THE JUBGMENT END
'avagpzk DRTEB 6.1.200? PASSED 53 THE PRL.
.'sEssIoys JEBGE AND CGNCURREET cgaxsa OE FTC Iv,

MANDYA, IN CF.L.A.NC§.84/'2€}?3>3 ARTE TE-IE JUD<E{EN'1'



"G" COURT oF¢KARNATAKAmGH ciauk-r op KARNA1-AéKA*mGﬁ*couR1*(§p1{ARNA"rM{A Hfél-1|      'A   

mm 53223322. mama 3..a.2oaa ymsan BY mm .--.r:.q:>z>3:..
czvm JUDGE i:J'£«'r..DN.} mm JI~€E'C, 11.:
C.C.NO.l88/2036 AND ACQUIT 2732 PE?ITION3EI R-. fEROH
TI-{E cmaezs LEVELLEI} AGAINST I-EM.  * - 

THIS CRIMINAL REVISIGH %32*r:'r:z.:zsz..4_:'1r:::§2a:.::2¢<3 =;iN~

FOR FINAL HEARING TEES DRE} $222' 
FOLLOWIEJG:     Z   

o 2 3.2: :z." _ 
This Criminal Reviéi§n_ Péﬁitionj is by

the accused whe waé_cQ:vi&t¢§ by the Trial

'Court in respect bf the Qffeﬁbe punishable

undgr Sﬁct;$ﬁg "§38,_;bf V tha Negctiable
Instrumen§s ""%£ct{~,"l88I} {fax shart,
hereiﬁaftér"féfé:f&§f;td as 'the ﬁat'? and

the Appellate _ﬂQuré confirming the Trial

~"gCsu§t'g  , véfﬁiat by dismissing the

Vpetitisnérfsfappeai.

 2.E« The case cf the respcndent~

 ' cém§;ainant in smart is that the petitiener
'5bd;rowed f3/- iakh fram the complainant on

 4 2.2OD£ and tewards discharge cf the Said

lsan amaunt, the accused issued. a cheque

5"/.

-r



 

nan courrr or KARNATAKAHIGH crack? or KARNATARA HIGH courrr or KARNATAKA Hu§H'cburrroF" 'KARNATAKA  COURT or KARNATAKA %H"tGH"cdI

ab»

Petitioner's appeal was dismissed. by Hthe

Lower Apgeliate Ccurt as mentianed aa:ii¢ﬁ{"

4. I have hearﬁ. the_m;earjéd"§Cd&nseL,"

Smt.Kavitha B., for th% ipe£:uia§§§ mahd

Sri.Raja 1., for the rﬁayonﬁegt and §exﬁsed*

the recards of thig case. 2"

3. The main ;9ﬁ§eﬁ%;§ﬁH§ﬁ§ forward by
the 3earn¢§ %%§n%e:; %§§i §ﬁg~§pgt:tianer is
thatj ;h§%@ #§§j g§%éeﬁ§§§§ of sage entered
inté b§twé§§c§§e ﬁ%rt:és as per Ex.D-1 aad

pursuantégc tha said agreement, accused had

-.giv&ﬁ Chequé%Ex,E-1 as security and this

'gchéque_wga n&3used by the ce'@iainant. It

i$.§2s$ érgﬁad that the ccmplainant has alas

 §dmitteﬁ the document Ex.B-1. Hence, it is
"W_'éogténded that there was as legally
x"=urécoverable debt in existence is hoid that

'the case has been proved aﬂainst the

"5

3"/.



HIGH cook? or KARNATAKA Huey: mun? or I<ARNA*rAKA"mGH COURTOF I<AnN"A'rAKA% HIGH %cdUm' 6:  WGHCOURT  kiéﬁi

petiticner. To. suppart the .aho?e

submission, reliance .15 piaced ,kﬁﬂ"7?hE

learned. counsel far the ;petitig§ér_'§hi_thé_ *

decisions in cage of K HAﬁ§Y$E& NA¥£K"VKS§_ﬁ

SHIVARANJ. SEETTY {2r3<:es_4_1{3§"'._v:e::::* ?.,»"i§5__§§
case of VENI~f.P..TESE  3.. "'v3:3'.': 32:22-IIr_';.r;s
same? (2010 cRL.:;;::, in case of

Ms KUI~{AR EXPO 'rsvLv:?_.5s;-%  CARPETS

9

(mp. 2<:m__  2mg;

6; O§~fthé  Qﬁher  hand, submission of
Sri.Raje_"L.'-for=:tﬁé*"respcndent~ccmpiainant

is that Cheque-Hx.Pl is admittedT by the

ﬁ ﬂ§et§¥i;§g%L so éisa the signature an it and
1tﬁé[§§$ﬁ§§ﬁ§f Ex.B~l, which is the agreement
.V0f'$§lé}"gas been referred :0 E3; the Court
'@$éiag gﬁ the caurse cf evidence appreciation
*¥é§ﬁ it has been noted that the agreement of

uV,sale was' anly fer ?1,80,Q$§/~' and' out of

that, l,6G,QOOf- has been paid and the

k

,_.s



 

IGH count? or KARNATAKAHIGH ccuzrror KARNATAKA HIGH' COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH c0UR'r"ot= KARNATAKA" méﬂ cduwr or KARNATAKA" HIGH"w"l

balance that remained was only ?2G,GGQ/~.

Therefore, the questicn 0f the" a¢§a$éd

issuing a cheque far' $3/~ 1akhW ﬁndé;._:he_ *

agreement cf sale will naﬁ a;ise§' Siﬁaa_th3

cheque is admitted, 3:3-.__ alsby  €1.;.¢.& ;'S:gg;3.atféj1ré,_ 

the preﬁumption in fav§%r pf ﬁﬁe®¢%m$1ainant
was rightiy drawﬁ %y #2; :cu§:g beiaw. No
rebuttal evideﬁce ig §1§§§§ ﬁg &§5lsdge tha
presumpti§ni §@% f$¢%ﬁ% :Q§ V%3$ cmmplaznant.
As   cw: 

. 3 1

Ccurtsaseiuw':al15"§§r ﬁe in.srference.

....

£;_ Ba$ing thus hearﬁ bath sides and 5 ﬁa§§£g¥ﬁ§ga of $39 aviﬁence an recard and in ?ée% d§%ﬁﬁ§[@heque-Ex.?-3 being admitted by .thé =p&ﬁzE§§ner, the presummticn therefore §a3,§o $e drawn in favcur 0f the camplainant

--}ﬁ&§' 3n1y :0 tha efféct that aheque was "*_i55ued tawards discharge sf iiability but at the samﬁ time, the prssumptian aism extends L .4 HIGH COEIRT OF KARNATAKA Him-I. CQIURT" 6"!-' % HIGH COURT OF" HIGH 'HIGH"C"°OUR'l' Oi' "HVlGH"(' ;' tn the inference being drawn that fixer-:-f§ 'wa5 existence of legally enfmrcesabie liability. This is the gasizian in zgw gs.% has been observed by the ﬁpaxfceﬁrt-by;thé three Judges Bench 't-the "C.-aV3eV W3. mam {AIR 2919 Tﬁie Apex Court has @bser?é& iﬁ_j§$é7f§§id case that existenca ¢ft_;ég§2;§@ féﬁ§%éﬁ%$£e debt or liahilitx Iggy;-=.=u2":rptic:n under Sectign 1?? cf thé ﬁ¢i"aa§ in tne caurse of the jﬁﬁgﬁent{ t&e,Apéx Caurt also tack note of the éarl.i_&-.2: --._§s£:':isi:3n in the case of "I<I3..I'Sﬁ;.?'€§'§a.. .3g=a~zAé;L%n""az~."T"'*A BEAT W3. EJATTATRAYA G "1=:I~i:c;Ti;zé:T~ [[i'é{:'§;% 32:: 2324;. m In the light cf the afaresaid v~ ?:'.e¢i'ai::n in law, as laid down in R2' £3?-.PPA's *- "case by the Apex Couxz, in the instant case, 'the cheque in quesﬁien, Ex.P~2 having been admittezd by the j{38'Ci'=':iOI'iE2'.', the preszmptian 3:?

IGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C0! therefore has to be drawn in favour of ﬁhe ccmplainant, even% in respect _QfO* the existence of legally recoverab;gOkde§t{ As_'v far ag the defence stand OLsg'¢¢ﬁ¢e:ﬁ§q{ thaugh Ex.D~l is_:Oadﬁiﬁted ,%5y' ﬂihé', ccmpiainant, the said é¢¢umentVﬁééea§5 that the c0m@lainant hé£f:é§:;§edl?1,6ﬁ,OGQf- and balance remained wage' QnIjO;??§,G0O#- and therefare, it §5~%atha: ﬁiffihult ta accept the axgum3ﬁ£ah_:ha;" "tggérds the balance ammunﬁ, :theO*%cﬁuSé§f~had. issued. the cheque for ?3/5»§akﬁ}_*OTﬁérefQre, tine presumption 'V,in ffavﬁug' of «the complainant has not. been VArabﬁtted:by the accused.

'"9; As far as the decisiens cited by the Olaarneﬁ counsel fer the petitioner are O}cQncerned, all the decisions are not "*,applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, particuiarly, in the light of the k HIGH comrr or KARNATAKA HIGH: CQURT or KARNATAKAWHIGH count or KARNATAKA HIGH Acourr as KARNATAAKAAAA 'man "<:buR*r bi: mm-Ans; "H'rGH*'t Vlww laid dawn by the Apex RANGAPPA's case.

16. The petition lacka merit the fcllawing order is pa5$2d{ "

The petition is dismissed. Caurta in ""én§»heﬁce, 'x « \v<««_

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court