Sri B C Srinivas Vs Sri S Ravikumar

SRI. S RAVIKUMAR S/O. S. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT. NO.79, 2ND CROSS, NEAR SRI.SHANIMAHATMA TEMPLE, DEVASANDRA, K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH B. MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2013 PASSED BY THE XIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.35753/2010 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I.ACT.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:46153 CRL.A No. 563 of 2013

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the XIV Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C.No.35753/2010 dated 22.04.2013.

¶25

The brief facts leading to this appeal is that the appellant/complainant has filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is alleged in the complaint that, the accused and his father acquainted with the complainant, approached the complainant on 16.09.2009 for a hand loan of Rs.3,50,000/- to meet their family problems. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- by way of cash on the same day as a hand loan to the accused. The accused and his father issued separate post dated cheques bearing No.197722 dated 25.01.2010 for Rs.1,75,000/-

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46153 CRL.A No. 563 of 2013

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

drawn on Syndicate Bank, Krishnarajapuram Branch, Bengaluru and No.592196 dated 25.01.2010 for Rs.1,75,000/- drawn on Bharath Co-operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd., Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru. The accused requested the appellant/complainant to present the first cheque issued by him on the assurance that he would arrange for money. Therefore, the appellant/complainant presented the said cheque through Syndicate Bank, Krishnarajampuram Branch, Bengaluru and it came to be dishonored for the reason 'Funds Insufficient'. The bank issued endorsement dated 02.02.2010. Thereafter, he got issued legal notice dated 04.02.2010, calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. The notice sent through RPAD has been returned with shara 'not claimed'. Hence he lodged a complaint to the Court.

¶29

After taking cognizance, case was registered in C.C.No.35753/2010. In response to summons, accused appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail. The

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:46153 CRL.A No. 563 of 2013

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

substance of plea was recorded and accused pleaded not

¶34

guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶35

To prove the guilt of the accused, complainant

¶36

examined as PW.1 and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7.

¶37

On closure of complainant side evidence,

¶38

statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded, accused has denied the evidence of PW.1 and adduced the defence evidence as DW.1 and marked 7 documents as

¶39

Exs.D1 to D7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. Being acquitted by the judgment of acquittal, the appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal.

¶40

appellant/complainant would submit that the trial Court has observed in the judgment that the

¶41

appellant/complainant has not produced any documents as to the loan given to the accused. Now the

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46153 CRL.A No. 563 of 2013

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

appellant/complainant has filed an application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. to permit him to produce documents and in support of application, affidavit and the list of 29 documents, is also filed. Hence, he sought to remand the case to the trial Court to adduce additional evidence for producing these documents.

¶45

As against this, learned counsel for the respondent/accused Sri Siddharth B. Muchandi, would submit that trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. The proposed documents are not required to adjudicate the matter. The accused has adduced his evidence as DW.1

¶46

and produced the documents to show that he has not borrowed the loan as alleged by the complainant. After lapse of 11 years, the appellant/complainant has filed this application and absolutely there are no grounds to remand

¶47

the case to the trial Court and sought for dismissal of this appeal.

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:46153 CRL.A No. 563 of 2013

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the

¶52

following points that would arise for my consideration:-

¶53

i) "Whether the appellant/complainant has made out a ground to remand the case by allowing the application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C.?

¶54

ii) What order ?

¶55

My answers to the above points are as under:-

¶56

i) Affirmative;

¶57

ii) as per final order

¶58

Regarding Point No.1:

¶59

The Trial has acquitted the accused on the ground

¶60

that the complainant has failed to establish the legally enforceable debt by the accused. Now the appellant has

¶61

filed application under Section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure and produced the documents No.1 to 29, which are as follows:

¶62

" 1. Licence for business issued by Town Municipal Office, K.R.Puram, Bangalore for the year 2002506;

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46153 CRL.A No. 563 of 2013

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

2. Letter issued by ICICI BANK, during March, 2006;

¶66

3. Summary Account statement issued by ICICI Bank;

¶67

4. Account extract of SRS Transport issued by ICICI Bank from 01.02.2007 to 28.02.2007;

¶68

5. Letter issued by SRS Transport to ICICI Bank on 01.07.2009;

¶69

6. Sale Receipt dated 22.05.2009 (AP-22/T-4467);

¶70

7. Delivery Note dated 22.05.2009 (AP-22/T-4467);

¶71

8. Sale Receipt dated 22.05.2009 (AP-28-U-5737);

¶72

9. Delivery Note dated 22.05.2009 (AP-28-U-5737);

¶73

10. Sale Receipt dated 22.05.2009 (KA-08-A-403);

¶74

11. Delivery Note dated 22.05.2009 (KA-08-A-403);

¶75

12. Sale Receipt dated 22.05.2009 (KA-21-5387);

¶76

13. Delivery Note dated 22.05.2009 (KA-21-5387);

¶77

14. Sale Receipt dated 22.05.2009 (KA-08-A-6399)

¶78

15 Delivery Note dated 22.05.2009 (KA-08-A-6399);

¶79

16. Delivery Note dated 05.12.2009 (KA-53-3418);

¶80

17. Account Extract of SRS Transport issued by ICICI Bank from 01.05.2009 to 30.06.2009;

¶81

18. Acknowledgement and statement of income of B.C. Srinivas issued by Income Tax Department for the year 2006-07, Assessment year 2007-08;

¶82

19. Balance Sheet of M/s. SRS Transport dated 31.03.2007 along with Annexure;

¶83

8 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:46153 CRL.A No. 563 of 2013

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

20. Acknowledgement and statement of income of B.C. Srinivas issued by Income Tax Department for the year 2007-08, Assessment year 2008-09, along with Statement of Total Income and Annexure-A and Annexure-I;

¶87

21. Acknowledgement and statement of income of B.C. Srinivas issued by Income Tax Department for the year 2008-09, Assessment year 2009-10, along with Statement of Total Income and Annexure-A and Annexure-I;

¶88

22. Acknowledgement and statement of income of B.C. Srinivas issued by Income Tax Department for the year 2009-10, Assessment year 2010-11;

¶89

23. Balance Sheet of M/s. SRS Transport dated 31.03.2010;

¶90

24. 'B' Extract pertaining to Vehicle Number AP-22-%4467;

¶91

25. 'B' Extract pertaining to Vehicle Number AP-U5737;

¶92

26. 'B' Extract pertaining to Vehicle Number KA-08-A6399;

¶93

27. 'B' Extract pertaining to Vehicle Number KA-08-A403;

¶94

28. 'B' Extract pertaining to Vehicle Number KA-215387;

¶95

29. 'B' Extract pertaining to Vehicle NumberKA-533418. "

¶96

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

¶97

appellant that his earlier counsel has advised him to produce these documents, which are required to

¶98

9 -

¶99

NC: 2025:KHC:46153 CRL.A No. 563 of 2013

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

substantiate his case. Since the trial Court has dismissed

¶102

the complaint on the ground that the complainant has failed to place materials to show that there was a legally enforceable debt, it is just and proper to provide one more opportunity to the complainant to produce additional documents as sought for. If this Application is allowed, no loss or prejudice will be caused to the other side. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.

¶103

Regarding Point No.2:

¶104

For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:

¶105

ORDER

¶106

i). The appeal is allowed .

¶107

ii). The judgment of acquittal passed by the XIV Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C.No.35753/2010 dated 22.04.2013, is set aside.

¶108

iii). Application filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶109

10 -

¶110

NC: 2025:KHC:46153 CRL.A No. 563 of 2013

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

iv). The case is remitted to the trial Court with a direction to provide opportunity to the appellant/complainant to produce the documents and adduce further evidence, if any.

¶113

v). The respondent/accused is also permitted to adduce his further evidence, if any.

¶114

vi). Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court without seeking any further notice on 03.12.2025.

¶115

vii). The Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment along with trial court records, as also, the proposed documents produced along with Application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., to the trial Court. Thereafter, the trial Court shall dispose of the case in accordance with law.

¶116

viii). The trial Court is directed to dispose of this case as early as possible as the matter is of the year 2010.

¶117

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶118

GPG/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Sri B C Srinivas v. Sri S Ravikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B C Srinivas v. Sri S Ravikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Prajwal M @ Goobe Vs State of Karnataka

Intelligence Officer Vs Ramesh Chand Patidar

Sri. B.V. Surapura Vs H. N. Ningaraju

Karthik Vs the State of Karnataka

Chinnu @ Sudarshan Vs State by

Shrikanth v @ Sri Vs the State of Karnataka