TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment - appeal dismissed. - Criminal Appeal No. 425 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Justice K. Somashekar For the Appellant : Smt. Neeraja Karanth, Advocate for Sri. K. Srihari, Advocate For the Respondent : Sri. Yathish Shetty P., Advocate For Sri. P. Karunakar, Advocate JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) JMFC, Belthangady, D.K. in C.C.No.809/2006 acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act , for brevity). The same is questioned in this appeal urging various grounds. 2. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under: The complainant Bank h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence of the complainant. The accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence. Subsequently, the Trial Court, on hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, had framed the points that arose for its consideration and answered point No.1 in the negative and point No.2 as per the final order and thereby acquitted the accused. It is this acquittal judgment which is called in question in the present appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the court below had committed an error in holding that there was no liability existing at the time of issuing the cheque. Exhibit P-1 the blank c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Court in the case of Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (Criminal Appeal No.867 of 2016 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5410 of 2014) decided on 19.09.2016, wherein the relevant paragraph reads as under: 10. We have given due consideration to the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant as well as the observations of this Court in Indus Airways Private Ltd. vs. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. ((2014) 12 SCC 539), with reference to the explanation to Section 138 of the Act and the expression for discharge of any debt or other liability occurring in Section 138 of the Act. We are of the view that the question whether a post-dated cheque is for discharge of debt or liability depends ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on a later date by a clerk of the Bank. Further, the complainant Bank had also not produced any account extract relating to the loan account of the accused. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court acquitting the accused, does not call for interference by this court. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on evaluating the material on record, I find that there is no illegality committed by the Trial Court, which calls for interference. It is to be seen that the cheque was not issued by the accused respondent towards a legally recoverable debt. It was issued as a security for the loan which he had borrowed from the complainant. This is further fortified by the judgment relied on by the counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
