High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 10 KAR CK 0022

Smt. Pramila Mohan vs Sri Divyanath Shetty

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 25 October 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 347 words

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Heard.

2.

This appeal is by the complainant assailing the order of the JMFC IV Court, Mangalore in C.C. No. 5766/2006 dated 1.10.2007.

3.

According to the complainant, the accused while dealing with the business of Prashanth Bar, Perlampady, which is a firm of the complainant, issued a cheque drawn on Vijaya Bank, Kevu Branch, Puttur Taluk, for a sum of Rs. 2,45,969/- in favour of the complainant''s firm. On presentation of the cheque, the same was dishonoured. After issuance of legal notice, complaint came to be filed, and the learned Magistrate after enquiry acquitted the accused.

4.

The Trial Court, taking into consideration the books of accounts produced and the statement of the complainant, has opined that the cheque issued to the complainant cannot be reasonably identified as one issued in the course of business of Prashanth Bar, as no such business cheque is said to have been issued by the accused in the regular course of business. It appears, there are several admissions on the part of the accused and the same has not been taken into consideration, Also, the accused could have produced the account books. Even there is a dispute as to the signature on the cheque concerned. However, the Trial Court has opined that the transaction between the complainant and the accused as reflected in the account books are not at all corroborated.

5.

The initial presumption available on the complainant that he holds the cheque. It is not the case of the accused that he has lost the cheque or there is any material alteration, However, the accused has also gone to the extent of disputing the signature on the cheque. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court with a direction to pass an order in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both the parties. All the contentions are kept open to be urged before the Trial Court, if need be to lead additional evidence.