State of Karnataka vs S. Haridas Nekkar

N. Ananda, J.—The learned Special Judge has acquitted respondent (hereinafter referred to as ''accused'') for an offence punishable u/s 506 IPC and also for an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ''the Act''). Therefore, State has filed this appeal. I have heard Sri B.T. Venkatesh, learned State Public Prosecutor for State.

It is the case of prosecution that during the year 2003, accused was the Principal of Rangarao Memorial Padavi Poorva College, Metagalli at Mysore. At the relevant time, PW2- S. Vishakantamurthy was working as a temporary lecturer in said college. The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from PW2 in the first week of February 2003 and accused had issued a post-dated cheque as security to said amount. PW2 presented cheque on 26.05.2003 and cheque was dishonoured as drawer of cheque had issued instructions to his banker to stop payment. PW2 caused a legal notice. The accused caused reply notice. After service of notice, accused called PW2 to his chamber and abused PW2 in filthy language for causing legal notice and threatened PW2 of dire consequences to his life. Thereafter, PW2 lodged first information with jurisdictional/police against accused.

It is the case of prosecution that on 05.08.2003 at about 10 a.m., PW2 had gone to chamber of accused (Principal) to sign attendance register. At that time, colleagues of PW2 viz PW3- Basavarajappa and PW4- M. Raghavendra Bhat were also present. After signing attendance register, PW2 demanded accused to repay money. The accused got enraged and abused PW2 by taking out the name of his caste and also threatened PW2 with dire consequences to his life. The accused caught hold of neck of PW2. In the meanwhile, other lecturers, who were present there, rescued PW2 from accused. On the same day, PW2 "lodged first information with jurisdictional police, on the basis of which crime was registered and first information report was dispatched to learned Special Judge.

It is the case of PW2 that he had lent a. sum of Rs. 50,000/- to accused and accused had not repaid the same. PW2 had caused a legal notice. In the circumstances, evidence of PW2 that he had demanded accused to repay money looks highly improbable. Above all, PW2 has not produced documentary evince to prove that he had filed a complaint against accused u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

PW2- S. Vishakantamurthy has deposed; there was exchange of words between PW2 and accused.

During cross-examination, PW2 has admitted that he joined Rangarao Memorial Padavipoorva College, Metagalli at Mysore as a lecturer in the year 1994; at the relevant time, accused was the Principal of said college. PW2 has admitted; that during the year 2003, he was getting salary of Rs. 1,800/- or Rs. 1,900/- per month and he was paying monthly rent of Rs. 600/-; he has not maintained any records to show that he had lent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to accused. PW2 has admitted that accused was financially sound.

At the relevant time, PW3- Basavarajappa was also working as a lecturer in Rangarao Memorial Padavipoorva College, Metagalli at Mysore. PW3 has deposed; there was enmity between accused and PW2; the accused abused PW2 by taking out the name of his caste, however, PW3 has not deposed reasons for his presence near the place of incident. PW3 has admitted that on 05.08.2003, he had to take one. period of class. PW3 has admitted that he had accompanied PW2 to Police Station. PW3 has denied suggestion that there was difference of opinion between accused and management of college. PW3 has admitted that PW2 and himself (PW3) were working as temporary lecturers in Rangarao Memorial Padavipoorva College, Metagalli at Mysore; in the year 2003, they had contacted one Nagaraj to help them to secure permanent appointments, in that connection, they had given some money to accused, who in turn had given money to said Nagaraja. During the year 2003, said Nagaraj died. Therefore, they were demanding accused to repay money. Even if evidence of PW3 is accepted, that would not lend corroboration to evidence of PW2 that he had lent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to accused. It appears, PW2 was working as a temporary lecturer and he had sought help of accused for his confirmation as a permanent lecturer. In that connection, Nagaraj had intervened and collected money in the presence of accused. After the death-of-said Nagaraj, PW2 and other lecturers (PW3 & PW4) were demanding accused to repay money. It appears that PW2, who had lost money and failed to get his appointment confirmed had grudge against accused. PW2 has taken advantage of his caste to settle scores with accused.

PW4- M. Raghavendra Bhat has deposed; he was working as a lecturer in Rangarao Memorial Padavipoorva College, Metagalli at Mysore. PW4 has deposed; on 05.08.2003 at about 10 a.m., he had gone to chamber of accused (Principal) to sign attendance register; accused came and sat on chair; PW2 demanded accused to repay a sum of Rs. 50,000/-; the accused abused PW2 by taking out the name of his caste and also held out threats to his life.

During cross-examination, PW4 has admitted that he had financial transaction with accused. PW4 has deposed; he had lent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to accused; he had caused a legal notice to accused. PW4 has admitted copy of his legal notice as per Ex. D.12. PW4 has admitted that he has not initiated any complaint against accused for an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. PW4 has admitted that he had borrowed loan from the Graduates'' Co-operative Bank and accused was surety for said loan. PW4 has admitted that he had not repaid loan and bank had caused notice to PW4 as per Ex. D.14 and Ex. D.15.

PW5-Nagarathna Kumari has deposed; on 05.08.2003 at about 10 a.m., when she had gone to take classes, she heard noise of quarrel from side of chamber of accused (Principal); when she came to that place; PW2 and accused were quarrelling.

During cross-examination, PW5 has admitted that she had not seen accused abusing PW2.

The evidence of PW6- P.D. Radhakrishna and PW7- Chandrashekara Prasad relates to investigation of case.

The first information relating to incident was lodged by PW2 at 230 p.m. on 05.08.2003. In first information, PW2 has stated that accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from him. Accused had issued cheque as a security for repayment of loan. The cheque was dishonoured and accused has issued instruction to banker to stop payment. On 05.08.2003, accused had received notice. Therefore, accused called PW2 to his chamber and abused him and also threatened him of dire consequences to his life. In first ""information, it is not stated when he was signing attendance register, the accused abused PW2 by taking out the name of his caste.

At this juncture, it is relevant to state that dispute between accused and PW2 relates to financial transaction. The caste factor was not involved in dispute between them. As already stated, PW2 has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that he had initiated a complaint against accused for an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque. Above all, prosecution has failed to prove that accused knew that PW2 belonged to Scheduled Caste and abused him taking out name of his caste with intention to insult him within public vision. It appears, PW2 who bore grudge against accused in relation to a financial transaction has taken advantage of his caste to set criminal law into motion. Thus, on re-appreciation of evidence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with impugned judgment. In the result, I pass the following:--

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.