Allowed

Mrs Nalini Raju v. M/S Durga Steels

Karnataka HC25 Apr 2015CRL.A/126/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that Section 145 of the Act does not permit accepting an affidavit in lieu of chief examination for the accused. The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and the matter remitted to the trial court to record evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order setting aside the acquittal is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court to record the evidence of the accused by way of chief, cross and re-examination

Mrs Nalini Raju Vs M/S Durga Steels — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

CRL.A.No.126/2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.126/2013

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MRS. NALINI RAJU, W/O LATE D.D.RAJU, R/AT NO.485/2B, LUMBINI HOUSE, 27^TH CROSS, EJIPURA NADUGHATTA, VIVEKNAGAR POST, BANGALORE 560047. (BY SRI ANNAIAH.C.V., ADV.)

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

AND:

¶12

M/S DURGA STEELS, NOW CHANGED AS M/S BHARATH STEEL CORPORATION, S.NO.63 (10/1 OLD KHATHA NO.64, NEW NO.131), REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MRS.A.BEGUM, D/O LATE AMANULLA KHAN, DOING BUSINESS AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HEGDE NAGAR MAIN ROAD, NEAR SOPHIA COLLEGE, BANGALORE 64, R/AT NO.7-21/5, 3^RD CROSS, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 084.

¶13

-2-

¶14

CRL.A.No.126/2013

¶15

MRS.A.BEGUM, D/O LATE AMANULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.7-21/5, 3^RD CROSS, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE 560084.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)

¶18

THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 13.12.2012 PASSED BY THE XIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.26241/2011 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I.ACT.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Though the matter was posted for admission,

¶22

with the consent of both the counsel, the matter is heard on merits.

¶23

The respondent is accused before the trial

¶24

Court for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and has been acquitted under the impugned judgment and order.

¶25

The appellant is said to have advanced a

¶26

loan of Rs.18,00,000/- and towards repayment of the

¶27

-3-

¶28

CRL.A.No.126/2013

¶29

dues, a cheque-Ex.P1 was issued by the respondent. When, the cheque was presented for encashment, it returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. A notice was issued. There was no compliance of the demand. Hence, a complaint came to be filed.

¶30

Perusal of the record reveals that the

¶31

second respondent has filed an affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination. This affidavit has been accepted by the trial Court and thereafter, the respondent was cross-examined.

¶32

Under the provision of Section 145 of the

¶33

NI Act, though an affidavit in lieu of chief-

¶34

examination can be accepted in respect of the complainant and the witness, such affidavit in lieu of chief-examination cannot be accepted for the accused. For this reason the order of the trial Court appears to be erroneous and illegal. When an affidavit cannot be accepted in lieu of chiefexamination of the accused, the procedure adopted

¶35

-4-

¶36

CRL.A.No.126/2013

¶37

itself is improper. Therefore, the consequent order has to be set aside. The matter has to be remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to record the evidence of DW.1 by way of chief-examination, cross-examination and re-examination and then dispose of the case in accordance the law.

¶38

The appeal is allowed. The impugned

¶39

judgment and order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to record the evidence as aforesaid and dispose of the case in accordance with law. To avoid delay, both the parties

¶40

are directed to appear before the trial Court on 01.06.2015 without awaiting further notice from the trial Court.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Mrs Nalini Raju v. M/S Durga Steels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Nalini Raju v. M/S Durga Steels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkatesha Vs State by Chamarajanagara

Manjunatha Land Developers Vs Lt.Col G.N. Rao (Retd)

Mr. V.A. Venkatesh Vs Mrs. M. Shobha Alexander

State of Karnataka Vs Gangadhara @ Divakara @ Padiya

Sri Unnikrishnan Vs T L George

State of Karnataka Vs Ahamathulla Ansari @ Ahamad