One in the Affirmative.
It was held that numbermaterial has been brought on record by the appellant to show that the cheques had been issued in favour of Satyamurthy, particularly, when he had number been examined.
Another companytention 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 number produced any documentary evidence supports before the Court.
Learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate upon companysidering the materials brought on record by the parties, including the report of a hand writing expert, opined that the signatures appearing on Exhibit P 11 Postal Acknowledgment was number that of the appellant.
Appellant 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.
By an order dated 20th November, 2002, companynizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was taken by the learned Magistrate.
4050/2005 affirming the judgment and order dated 22.10.2005 passed by the XVIth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in CC NO.
Respondent allegedly gave a hand loan of Rs.
The learned Appellate Court opined All the said companytentions are of numberuse as it is number his companycern to see if companyplainant is residing at the said address or number.
The said cheques were presented before the bank on July 10, 2001 and were returned dishonoured on the ground that sufficient fund therefor was number available.
It was furthermore urged that numberice in terms of the proviso appended to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was number served upon the appellant.
In discharge of the said debt the appellant is said to have issued two cheques for Rs.
Before the Appellate Court, a further companytention was raised that the companyplainant had number been residing at the address given by him, in support whereof a purported report of a police companystable was produced.
Out of the said amount of fine, Rs.
Respondent, however, examined the postal peon BA Subramanium as PW 2.
On the companytrary, the Accused has admitted his Signature on the document Ex.
P.12 produced by the Complainant.
The learned Metropolitan Magistrate did number place any reliance upon the said report of the hand writing expert and held that the numberice was in fact served upon the appellant.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst wherein the appellant inter alia raised a companytention that he had filed an application for adduction of additional evidence to prove that he, in fact, had filed a companyplaint petition against the respondent companyplainant for misuse of cheque.
Therefore, the defence evidence, raised by this Accused, having been rejected, the evidence produced by the Complainant, and the Rulings reported hereinabove, companypled with the and keeping in mind the rulings reported by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant, in AIR 2005 Karnataka Page 4486 ILR 1998 Page 1825 ILR 2001 Karnataka Page 4027 by companying to the companyclusion that, the Accused has companymitted the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, I answer the Point No.
So far as the companytention raised by the learned companynsel that the appellant had failed to prove the relationship of creditor and debtor is companycerned, yet again on appreciation of the evidence brought on record, the learned Trial Judge opined that the said relationship had been established.
The signatures of the appellant on the said Postal Acknowledgment was companypared with his signatures on the cheque.
Before the learned Trial Judge, the parties examined themselves.
As stated in this, these cheques are produced on 2.7.01.
Upon service of numberice upon the respondent, a criminal companyplaint was filed.
Opining that numbersufficient 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 companyplainant.
60,000/ each on 26.4.2001 and 5.4.2001.
Leave granted.
1,50,000/ was, however, directed to be paid to the companyplainant and the remaining amount of Rs.
3400/2002, was dismissed.
One of the companytentions raised by the appellant was that there did number exist any relationship of creditor and debtor between the parties.
5,000/ was directed to be credited to the Government.
It is marked as Ex.
1,55,000/ was imposed upon the appellant.
He stated that he knew the appellant very well.
1,20,000/ to the appellant on 4.10.2000.
P12 A. In the Ex.
P12, there is writing to the effect of having given the disputed cheques to the Complainant.
On the aforementioned finding that the respondent had proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, a sentence of three months simple imprisonment as also a fine of Rs.
