9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed accused. Therefore, the impugned judgment can be sustained dehors affidavit evidence of accused. In the circumstances, there is no need to remand the matter to trial court. There are no reasons to interference with impugned judgment - Appeal dismissed. - Criminal Appeal No. 545/2010 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2014 - Hon ble Mr. Justice N. Ananda For the Appellant : Sri S.G. Bhagavan, Advocate For the Respondent : Sri S.G. Bhagavan, Advocate JUDGMENT The learned trial Judge has acquitted respondent (hereinafter referred as the accused ) of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act ). Therefore, appellant (hereinafter referred as the complainant ) is before thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was initiated. 4. The learned counsel for parties have taken me through evidence. 5. In the first place, the complainant has not produced books of accounts to show that accused had taken aforestated number of tippers and excavators from complainant on hire. The complainant has failed to prove that on 20.05.1997, accused was due in a sum of ₹ 19,00,000/- to complainant towards hire charges and that accused had issued cheque bearing No.019756 dated 20.05.1997 for a sum of ₹ 19,00,000/- in favour of complainant. In the second place, complainant has not explained the circumstances under which a sum of ₹ 19,00,000/- which was due on 20.05.1997 was inflated to a sum of ₹ 39,00,000/- on 30.10.2001. 6. At this junc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not declared by the assessee, cannot be countenanced because such transactions are forbidden by law. 10. As per the averments of complaint and the evidence of complainant, accused was due in a sum of ₹ 19,00,000/- to complainant as on 20.05.1997. It is the case of complainant and his evidence that on 30.10.2001, the instant cheque for a sum of ₹ 39,00,000/- was issued towards full and final settlement of amount which the accused owed to complainant. 11. Sri S.G. Bhagavan, learned counsel for complainant, relying on judgment of this court, reported in ILR 2006 KAR 4242 (in the case of H. Narasimha Rao Vs. R. Venkataram) would submit that in a proceeding initiated under section 138 of the Act, it is not open to drawer of che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition is dismissed. 14. The learned counsel for accused would submit the view taken by Kerala High Court in Sasseriyil Joseph s case (supra) that under section 138 of the Act a time barred debt cannot be held as legally recoverable debt, has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1785/2001. 15. On consideration of afore stated judgments, I find that the view taken by Kerala High Court in Sasseriyil Joseph s case (supra), has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1785/2001. There are no reasons for me to differ from the view taken by the Kerala High Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1785/2001. In the case on hand, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
