Dismissed

Purandara Rai v. Naveendra Naik

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2021CRL.A/473/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 138 NI Act, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal. The trial court had acquitted the accused because the loan was time-barred when the cheque was issued. The High Court found no valid grounds to reconsider this finding and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal is dismissed as there are no valid grounds to admit it.

Purandara Rai Vs Naveendra Naik — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.473 OF 2019 (A)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

PURANDARA RAI S/O. LATE. SEETHARAMA RAI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O.KUDKADI, PADUVANNUR VILLAGE, PUTTUR, D.K - 574313. ...APPELLANT

¶7

(BY SRI JEEVAN K, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

NAVEENDRA NAIK, S/O. GANAPAYYA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. THARIGUPPE, CHIKKAMUDNUR VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K - 574203. …RESPONDENT

¶10

(BY SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 24.12.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., PUTTUR, D.K., IN C.C.NO.216/2013 – ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-complainant and

¶17

respondent-accused regarding admission.

¶18

This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal dated 24.12.2018 passed in C.C.No.216/2013 by the Prl.Civil Judge & JMFC, Puttur, D.K.

¶19

The facts in brief are that the accused had borrowed a loan of Rs.90,000/- from the complainant and executed a receipt in his favour for repayment of the said amount and also issued cheque bearing No.832204 dated 05.01.2013 for Rs.90,000/- drawn on the account of accused in S.C.D.CC Bank, Puttur Branch. The said cheque was presented for collection, but the same returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. The complainant issued a legal notice to accused on 08.04.2013 regarding dishonour of cheque and calling upon him to pay the amount, but the accused did not comply with the demand made by the complainant. Hence, the

¶20

¶21

complainant filed private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶22

The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the respective parties, arrived at factual finding that the complainant has failed to prove that there was legally enforceable debt and the loan advanced by the complainant to the accused and his claim was not barred by time. Being aggrieved by the finding given by the trial Court, the appellant is before this Court.

¶23

It is an admitted fact that as per the oral evidence given by the complainant before the trial Court, it was a time barred debt. Ex.P-6 is the receipt dated 22.06.2009, which is executed by the accused-respondent in favour of the complainant for having borrowed a loan of Rs.90,000/- for his family necessities, but according to the complainant cheque was issued on 05.01.2013, which is beyond the period of three years. Under these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that it was a time barred debt and the cheque issued for clearance of the time barred debt cannot be entertained.

¶24

¶25

On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence

¶26

placed on record, this Court is of the view that there are no valid grounds to admit the appeal. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

BSR

Purandara Rai v. Naveendra Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purandara Rai v. Naveendra Naik

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

M/S Sree Gokulam Chits Finance Co. (P) Ltd. Vs Sri Mahesh Sharma

Sri Shivamurthy Vs Sri Ranganath S

Smt. H J Padmavathi Vs Sri. Manjunath M R

M S S R Chits (P) Ltd., Vs Image Aluminium

M Prasad Vs B Janaradhana

Smt. Prema Vs State of Karnataka