Dismissed

Smt Parvathi v. Lakshmikanth

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2021CRL.A/912/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the criminal appeal against the acquittal of the respondent accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the complainant failed to prove the existence of a chit fund business, the validity of the transactions, or that the cheque belonged to the accused.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal filed under Section 378(4) of CrPC is dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the respondent in C.C. No.1406/2011.

Smt Parvathi Vs Lakshmikanth — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.912 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PARVATHI W/O. B.JAYARAMU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.4335, 9^TH CROSS NANJANGUD, MYSORE DISTRICT-571301. ... APPELLANT

¶9

[BY SRI. K.A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE] AND:

¶10

LAKSHMIKANTH S/O REVE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT 7952-5048, 2^ND CROSS HOUSING BOARD, NANJANGUD MYSORE DISTRICT-571301. … RESPONDENT

¶11

[BY SRI. B. SHARATH KUMAR, ADVCOATE]

¶12

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CRPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.04.2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD AT NANJANGUD IN C.C. NO.1406/2011 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This petition is filed against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 07.04.2016 in C.C.

¶18

No.1406/2011 passed by the Court of II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Nanjangud at Nanjangud, whereby the accused/respondent has been acquitted of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’ for short].

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for appellant and

¶20

the learned counsel for respondent and perused the evidence and material on record.

¶21

It is the case of the appellant that, he was

¶22

running a chit fund business for an amount of 30,000/and the accused had invested in two chits. The accused had taken one bid fund on 17.10.2008 by bidding the chit and received an amount of 18,900/- leaving out `11,100/- and bid for another chit and received an

¶23

¶24

amount of 18,000/on 10.03.2008 leaving out 12,000/-. The accused had to pay monthly instalments in respect of two bids in a sum of 56,000/-. Further, the accused also took hand-loans of 30,000/- on 28.07.2008, 10,000/- on 02.08.2008, 5,000/- on 30.09.2008 and 3,000/- on 01.10.2008 by paying interest to the complainant as he was a subscriber to the chit fund. In discharge of the said liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.13804 dated 30.11.2009 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Nanjangud for a total sum of 1,04,000/and when the said cheque was presented to the bank on 01.12.2009, it was returned dishonoured with a shara ‘Funds insufficient’ in the account of the accused, on 15.01.2010. At the request of the accused, cheque was once again presented on 24.03.2010. However, the cheque was returned with an endorsement ‘Funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 25.03.2010 which was served on the accused on 30.03.2010. However, he failed to honour the amount mentioned in the cheque and therefore, committed an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶25

¶26

The complainant got examined herself as P.W.1 and

¶27

got marked Exs.P1 to 5. The accused got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 4.

¶28

The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused by Judgment dated 07.04.2016, which is under challenge in this appeal.

¶29

According to the complainant, the accused was a subscriber to the chit fund transaction conducted by the complainant and he bid for two chits and received a sum of 18,900/- and 18,000/- after leaving out a sum of 11,100/- and 12,000/- respectively. It is the further case of the complainant that on various dates, the accused borrowed hand-loans totally amounting to 48,000/-. It is stated that the accused had to pay monthly instalments in respect of two chits amounting to 56,000/- and therefore in discharge of the said liability, issued a cheque for an amount of `1,04,000/-, which got dishonoured on its presentation and therefore committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶30

¶31

In order to show that the accused was a

¶32

member of the chit fund transaction and he received the amount as stated by the complainant, except the oral evidence, there is absolutely no material placed by the complainant. The accused has completely denied the chit transaction and also the capacity of the complainant to pay the hand-loans to him. In this connection, the complainant is examined as P.W.1. She has stated that she brought the amount from her father’s house. Neither in the complaint nor in the notice, the same has

¶33

been mentioned and for the first time before the Court it is stated that the amount was procured from her father. The complainant has not produced any document evidencing the loan transaction with the accused. According to the complainant, there were other members to the chit fund transaction. However, the complainant has failed to establish that she was running a chit fund business or that the accused was a member and he received the chit fund amount from the complainant and received hand-loans from her on various occasions.

¶34

¶35

Complainant has failed to establish that in respect of the said transaction, the accused issued the cheque in question.

¶36

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the cheque belong to the accused and he has not disputed the signature on the cheque and therefore submits that there is a legal presumption available in favour of the complainant.

¶37

In the reply notice, the accused has categorically denied that he was a member of the chit fund etc, as stated by the complainant. He has denied complainant advancing any hand-loan to him. According to him, while he was riding a motorcycle, the complainant suddenly tried to cross the road and as

¶38

such, he fell down from the motorcycle, at that time there was a petty quarrel and his bag containing blank cheque as well as mobile phone were taken away and the said cheque has been made use by the complainant to file a false case.

¶39

¶40

In the present case, the complainant has

¶41

failed to establish the initial burden that he was running a chit fund business and the accused was one of the member of the said chit fund. He has failed to establish that bid amount was paid to the accused and on various dates, complainant advanced the hand-loan. The defence taken by the accused is probabilised.

¶42

The learned Magistrate after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, has come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to establish the guilt of the accused. The reasons assigned cannot be said to be either perverse or illegal. Hence, no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Ksm*

Smt Parvathi v. Lakshmikanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Parvathi v. Lakshmikanth

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

Sushma Chathra Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Rajesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Abdul Muner B Y Vs Smt Aleema B a

Rajendra @ Senniyappa Vs the State through

Kiran S/O Narsingh Thakur Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.K.Nagarathna Vs the State of Karnataka