9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Revision No.1020/2006, whereby and whereunder the revision application filed by him from the judgment dated 14.10.2006 passed by the VIth Fast Track Court at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 4050/2005 affirming the judgment and order dated 22.10.2005 passed by the XVIth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in CC NO. 3400/2002, was dismissed. Respondent allegedly gave a hand loan of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the appellant on 2 4.10.2000. In discharge of the said debt the appellant is said to have issued two cheques for Rs. 60,000/- each on 26.4.2001 and 5.4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated by the complainant was the correct address. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel that the appellant had failed to prove the relationship of creditor and debtor is concerned, yet again on appreciation of the evidence brought on record, the learned Trial Judge opined that the said relationship had been established. Another contention which was raised by the appellant before the learned Trial Jude was that the cheque had in fact been issued to one Satya Murthy who was a property dealer, in respect whereof the learned Trial Judge held: "In the present case, the accused, to prove the arguments, has not produced any documentary evidence supports before the Court. On the contrary, the Accused has admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of fine, Rs. 1,50,000/- was, however, directed to be paid to the complainant and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- was directed to be credited to the Government. An appeal was preferred thereagainst wherein the appellant inter alia raised a contention that he had filed an application for adduction of additional evidence to prove that he, in fact, had filed a complaint petition against the respondent - complainant for misuse of cheque. Opining that no sufficient reason has been assigned for allowing the said application for adduction of additional evidence, it was held that the burden was on the appellant - accused to rebut the case of the complainant. It was held that no material has been brought on record by the appellant to show that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ]. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under: "Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an ofence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or accept or thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him." Section 139 of the Act reads: "139. Presumption in favour of holder- It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability." Indisputably, in view of the decisions of this Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat (supra), the initial burden was on the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of Marenahalli, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore, as it appears from the affidavit affirmed in support of the counter affidavit. From a perusal of the memo of appeal filed by the appellant himself before the Appellate Court, it would appear that therein also the same address was given, namely, Marenahalli, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore. Appellant, therefore, was aware that the respondent had been residing at Marenahalli, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore as also the fact that he had shifted from his earlier residence, namely, No. 326, 41st Cross Road, 8th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for our interference with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. As the amount of fine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
