Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3(d). The cheque in question was issued as a security cheque during the chit transaction and not towards discharge of any legally enforceable liability. The amount due under the joint memo had been fully paid, Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT and the complainant misused the cheque in question.

The complainant failed to report the alleged issuance of the cheque to the court when executing the NBW and FLW. The complainant failed to produce cogent evidence to substantiate its case.

b) That the respondent has not supported his case and there is a clear admission by the respondent/accused that still the earlier complaints are alive he has not returned the NBW & FLW issued by the court which was taken by the complainant and the same is evident in his cross examination at Para-01 "ನಾವು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಲಯದಿಂದ NBW and FLW ಪಡೆದು ಜಾರಿ ಮಾಡಲು ಹೋದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿ ಸದರಿ ಚೆಕ್‌ನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎನ್ನು ತ್ತಾರೆ. ಈ ರೀತಿ NBW and FLW ಪಡೆದು ಜಾರಿ ಮಾಡಲು ನಾನೇ ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಜುಲೈ 2023 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ದಿನಾಂಕ ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ , ಆ ರೀತಿ ನಾನು ಯಾವುದೇ NBW and FLW ಜಾರಿ Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT ಮಾಡಲು ಹೋಗಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ . ದಿ 19. 08. 2023 ರಂದು ಸಹ ಸದರಿ NBW and FLW ಜಾರಿ ಆಗಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಆದೇಶ ಪುಟದಲ್ಲಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ, ಆರೋಪಿ ಜಂಟಿ ಮೆಮೋ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಹಣ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡದೇ ಡಿಪಾಲ್ಟ ‌ ಆಗಿದ್ದ ರಿಂದ ನಾವು ಚೆಕ್‌ನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ನಾವು ಆ ರೀತಿ ಆರೋಪಿ ಇಂದ ಚೆಕ್ ಪಡೆದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಿಂದ ಪಡೆದ NBW and FLW ಹಿಂತಿರುಗಿಸಿಲ್ಲ "
c) That the appellant had rebutted the presumptions U/s. 118 & 139 NI Act not only by examining herself but also through the cross-examination of the complainant who is the only complainant witness. To rebut the legal presumption in question, the accused Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT need not require direct evidence to disprove the existence of consideration.
d) Whether Trial Court has right to pass the judgment and sentence one-sided by brushing up the valuable and probable defense of the accused? On page 22 of the Judgment the learned Magistrate has given a reasoning stating that "But as per the complainant version when they went to execute NBW and FLW, the accused issued a said cheque in July 2023. As such, on 19/8/23 the same fact should have been reported to the court. But non-reporting the same would not render the case of the complainant untenable, because the chances of complainant intending to report the same after realizing the said cheques cannot be brushed away.". The trial court had ordered for re-issuance of NBW & FLW ON 19-08-

j) The Trial Court, therefore, ought to have disbelieved the false story concocted story created by the Respondent in respect of collecting the cheque in question while executing the NBW & FLW in CC No. 17640/2021 case which is at Exhibit D-01. In reality, no such NBW & FLW were executed by the court the trial court had not handed over/issued such warrant either to the police or to the complainant and even otherwise the respondent has no locus standi to execute on his own and also without having any respect to the Hon'ble court has failed to return it back and thereby committed disobedience to the trial court. However, the trial court ought not to have issued NBW & FLW to the complainant as such provisions do not prevail in Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, therefore, ought to have believed, considered, and taken into account the said piece of evidence in favor of the Appellant. Furthermore, the case Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT of the appellant is that the cheque in question was taken as security at the time of joining the chit.