M/S IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LTD v. SRI NARASHIMHA MURTHY
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 378(4)
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 s. 138
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In the absence of the said documents, the Learned Magistrate has rightly held that the appellant has failed to establish that the cheque has been issued for repayment of legally enforceable debt. Hence, there are no grounds to admit the appeal. Accordingly, appeal is…
Judgment
LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. HARISHA A S, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI NARASHIMHA MURTHY MAJOR R/AT HARACHANAHALLI 62 TIPTUR, TUMAKURU KARNAT AKA 572 201 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.02.2024 PASSED BY THE IX A.S.C.J. AND A.C.M.M., COURT OF SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-7) IN C.C.NO.6635/2022 AND - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19792 CRL.A No. 591 of 2024 CONSEQUENTLY CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal is by appellant praying to set-aside the Judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed in C.C.No.6635/2022 on the file of IX Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes Judge, Member-MACT, Bengaluru, whereunder the respondent/accused has been acquitted for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
It is the case of the complainant that the respondent-accused has borrowed appellant-company and for making re-payment of the amount the respondent-accused has issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,58,720/- and same came to be dishonored.
The respondent-accused taken up the defence that he has not borrowed any loan from the appellant and he is - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19792 CRL.A No. 591 of 2024 not due any amount to appellant. The appellant has not produced any loan documents to establish that the respondent-accused had borrowed the loan amount from the appellant and he was due a sum of Rs.1,58,270/- as on the date of issuance of cheque-Ex.P4. The appellant has not produced any loan application, documents stated to have been executed by the respondent-accused while availing loan and statement of loan account.
Operative part
In the absence of the said documents, the Learned Magistrate has rightly held that the appellant has failed to establish that the cheque has been issued for repayment of legally enforceable debt. Hence, there are no grounds to admit the appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 378(4); Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.