Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. This is an appeal filed by the appellant u/sec. 374(3) r/w. 386 of Cr.P.C to set-aside the orders passed by the trial court

-9- Crl. Appeal No. 1552/2016 in C.C.No.30090/2000 dt.24-11-2016 in convicting the accused/ appellant for the offence u/sec.138 of N.I. Act and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs.2,72,000/- in default thereof he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months and Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to state.

11. The appellant has urged many grounds in the appeal stating that at no point of time there was an lease agreement executed in between the parties the appellant and the respondent. The said agreement is not proved with cogent evidence. The appellant has not even lead any evidence of the witness as shown in Ex.P.1 and further contended that signature on the agreement is not proved as though it was sent to forensic lab. The FSL authorities stated that photo-static reproduction of the document cannot be suitably and scientifically examined for comparison and requested to send the original of the document. Original document has not sent to the FSL report for hand-writing expert. There was a memorandum of understanding in between the appellant and respondent as per Ex.D.1 and the appellant had taken garmentary factory and at that point of time the KSFC official approached and stated that entire garment factory in hypothecation to KSFC and they have seized the factory and put the lock. Therefore, appellant approached the respondent. He has not interested to continue the

13. The evidence of DW1 that he know the complainant and he was doing the granite export business in the year 1994. The complainant requested to purchase the M/s.Trendsware International Garment Factory. But as the appellant have no knowledge he insisted Mr.Ajjegowda to purchase the same and there was M.O.U entered in between the parties. Ex.D1(a) and Ex.D.1(b) are the signatures and also requested the respondent to

-12- Crl. Appeal No. 1552/2016 look after the garment factory and fixed salary at Rs.15,000/- per month and also provide a car. There was the factory was running he came to know the entire unit hypothecated to KSFC and the KSFC has seized and locked and thereafter the appellant requested for cancellation of M.O.U. and there was some arrears of salary pending payable to the respondent. Accordingly 8 cheques were issued. The appellant was having a sufficient source of income at the time of execution of cheque. He was paying monthly rent of Rs.2,700/- to the premises and Rs.2,00,000/- advance. After cancellation of the M.O.U the appellant requested return of money of Rs.4,25,000/-, but not paid. These are all chief examination of PW1.

-13- Crl. Appeal No. 1552/2016 provided a car to move on and thereafter the appellant came to know that the garment factory was hypothecated to KSFC. Accordingly he cancelled the agreement in between the parties and he never borrowed money from respondent as his financial possession was strong and it is also his contention is that the cheque was stolen and misused by the respondent when those cheques were kept in garment factory when it was run in. If really the cheques were stolen what prevented the appellant to file a criminal case against the respondent before the proper forum soonafter he received the legal notice as the same was not claimed and sent through under certificate of posting. The appellant is a businessman will not kept silent. It really there was a breach of trust caused by the respondent garment factory by stolen the cheques in question. Therefore view from any angle since the respondent has proved the cheque in question was issued for legally recoverable debt and none other transactions. So far as the documents FSL reports are concern Q1, Q2, Q5, Q6 and Q7 are belongs to appellant, who signed on S1 to S6. Therefore, the document Ex.D1 the FSL authorities admitted the signature of the accused. Though the appellant tried presumption u/sec.139 of N.I. Act. But the contention taken with regard to the memorandum of understanding and non-availment of loan cannot