AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These appeals are filed by the complainant. It is his case that he lent a sum of Rs.50.00 lakhs to the respondents who assured him of making him
a Director in the first accused Firm. Since they did not do so, he demanded the return of the amount. Thereafter, accused issued six cheques, in all,
for a sum of Rs.50.00 lakhs.
When the complainant presented the cheque bearing No.744328 dated 05.07.2014, drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, Malleshwaram for
Rs.10.00 lakhs, the same was returned with an endorsement of ''insufficient funds''. Notice being issued, the same having not been responded,
proceedings were initiated. By order dated 18.07.2016, the accused was acquitted. Hence, Appeal No.1636 of 2016.
With reference to the cheque bearing No.744326 dated 05.07.2014, drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, Malleshwaram for Rs.10.00 lakhs,
the same was returned with an endorsement of ''insufficient funds''. Notice being issued, the same having not been responded, proceedings were
initiated. By order dated 18.07.2016, the accused was acquitted. Hence, Appeal No.1639 of 2016.
With reference to the cheque bearing No.744327 dated 05.07.2014, drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, Malleshwaram for Rs.5.00 lakhs, the
same was returned with an endorsement of ''insufficient funds''. Notice being issued, the same having not been responded, proceedings were
initiated. By order dated 18.07.2016, the accused was acquitted. Hence, Appeal No.1640 of 2016.
With reference to the cheque bearing No.744329 dated 05.07.2014, drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, Malleshwaram for Rs.10.00 lakhs,
the same was returned with an endorsement of ''insufficient funds''. Notice being issued, the same having not been responded, proceedings were
initiated. By order dated 18.07.2016, the accused was acquitted. Hence, Appeal No.1641 of 2016.
The Trial Court, on considering the material evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to show his monitory
capacity to lend the amounts and hence acquitted the accused.
Sri C.M.Mahesh, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has substantial source of income to pay the amount of Rs.50.00
lakhs. Hence, he prays that the appeal be allowed.
On hearing the learned counsel, I am of the view that there is no merit in these appeals. The presumption in favour of the complainant with
regard to the cheques is rebutable. The same is rebutted by the material evidence of the accused. The case is that a sum of Rs.50.00 lakhs was
given to the accused in cash on the promise to make him as a Director. There are no documents at all to show that the complainant was in
possession of Rs.50.00 lakhs in cash for having lent the amount. Therefore, the Trial Court disbelieved the case of the complainant.
Neither in the demand notice, complaint or in his examination-in-chief has the complainant stated the date, month and year, in which he has paid
the alleged amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs in favour of the accused. There is not even a whisper with regard to the same. It is only during the cross-
examination of PW1, for the first time, he has stated that he paid the alleged sum of Rs.50.00 lakhs during the first week of January, 2014. There is
no material to substantiate the same. Therefore, the said reasoning was not accepted by the Trial Court.
The further reasoning of the complainant is that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs from the Federal Bank of India and that he had sold
his property and he is doing a real estate business and property dealings. Therefore, he has income from those businesses. Here too, the
complainant was unable to satisfy the court. The income-tax returns of the year 2011 would indicate that he had borrowed a loan from the Federal
Bank of India in a sum of Rs.9.00 lakhs and odd. However, the loan is of the year 2011. The payment of the alleged amount to the accused is of
the year 2014. Therefore, the extract of the income-tax returns is not sufficient evidence to show that he has lent a sum of Rs.50.00 lakhs.
Here is a case where a sum of Rs.50.00 lakhs has been advanced. The said amount is unaccounted. When the cheque bounced, the protection
of law was sought for. I am of the view that protection under law could not be granted to those who have violated the law themselves.
The amount involved is a sum of Rs.50.00 lakhs. Complainant should have shown atleast a major extent of how he came into possession of
cash of Rs.50.00 lakhs. In the absence of the same, the Trial Court was justified in holding that he did not have any source of income to lend the
amount.
A specific question was asked to the appellant''s counsel as to how this money was lent. He answered by stating that part of the money was
paid by cheque and part was paid by cash. He was once again asked the same question, for which he repeated the same answer. When he was
asked to substantiate his answer, he submitted that the entire amount is paid only by cash. This would clearly indicate that his only intention was to
mislead the court. He has told a deliberate lie to the Court. It is very unfortunate that he attempted to mislead the court.
Keeping in mind the entire evidence and the material on record, I do not find any perversity in the order of the Trial Court that calls for any
interference. The order of the Trial Court is just and proper and based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, appeals being
devoid of merit, are dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the appeals, the pending I.As. stand rejected. The orders dated 18.07.2016 passed by the XIII ACMM, Bangalore
in C.C.Nos.27485 of 2014, 27844 of 2014, 27848 of 2014 and 27846 of 2014 are confirmed.