Ganesh Sb Narayan I-Iegde v. Kri shnamurthy Mm ij unath 1 Iegde

Judgment

1. ‘ ‘.. ..‘i. •‘ • : I-’• .1 : I 1 .- ; I- •• . . • t. .- S 3 I I S. S ‘i••“r’qdiujsLIn!1t1JOtt ‘I.!) Pl’•’’ 41!‘LI’ u’j)ttt’I’’I •‘a:•r’cI.••jI1’L1lrli..%III•tjJ •1••“r••‘.:t: ‘1 j)’VflE‘t) I • 1 ii” : I ‘d j ‘ L1 •

1.1LII.•rw‘01Vp!LtPLLIJ’Vj1putLI0!)tLi!LLII. III01 q1]”’’•‘LpUtraipt;nJ’it“1It’•IflWLIlLjIIt)PthI0t11 “qu’nr‘rj0UPI””‘JSII i;iruiiqdttio’aqiIn •‘tjItI() ‘LjIO 1IflLj qiiripuiII’0 iIfl(UU: •4110 u1) liiiIll’ II! ‘.1111 i’,ru’::Jwo’‘P‘m a’”1”’P: (1•‘I’”• q •I,I’IIil.•pi’ • ill: r’l’Ii tpaiiorLl’ tnriiri LIII’ gLIb1L:aIt •y ‘ b Jt 101 S.,iti. Lfl,‘)lit ‘1 •‘Lt’l t. LI f% ‘.I’’,’•‘•“ .! ‘.•.,i•’ •p’“‘.ULjt‘‘I:kt •;;•‘•‘tIip r”•‘•“. • .1:1 t•.2’, • I •f I V • I t I. , . •.• • Ii•t.• • ‘ , ‘ ‘ - 9 and vague. [here is no a erment as to the nature of transaction under which mone’ is said to ha e been lent to the respondent. not even the date of the loan transaction is mentioned in the body of the complaint nor has an) evidence been tendered in this regard. Ihe fact that a large amount of Rs. 1.80.000’- is said to have been paid by cash and that not paid by cheque or Demand Draft, would further render the transaction a doubtlbl transaction. [he law requires that any such payment exceeding Rs.49.99’V- would require to he evidenced either by cheque or Demand Draft and in the absence of which, the transaction cannot be believed. [he petitioner also claiming that he has lent large sums of mone> in the absence of an> source of income and in the absence of any income tax returns being placed on record, it could not be said that the appellant had the capacit> to lend such money. It is in

this background that the trial court has held that there uts a necessity on the part of the appellant to have demonstrated this, on the face of it. in the light of the defence set up by the A ‘0 respondent. to the ci fl’ct that the iran,a Hon ‘N’1i )b 11011 \1 —teilt aeti ‘hat h kt tiK1uc \. 1% M)LI’ht to I’: ;tr •a •.,d I i. it. ‘ii (I CCLII ‘i “it) Id t’ In it tie! I ‘Qflt C it”Jot t iti cit mcd tii si_i nusc. on iii cheqLl it I mci ‘:i it 1K had slipped pa’i ment tinder die said cheque 4s ft ;js .1 i0’! tileqile leat Hiough this ‘ias not ‘n ‘iri1ing. the tact that th , ml h i iolkn td hi tiuttior odd ii Iihat ‘h it he i d ndced ic.iephonicaiis ‘olin med th baniei ‘u ivr ra:t ‘Ikilt lilt! It Is On iiiit l1stI tact1’ , iii l ti’e nqu h.i1 beer’ —Ii’peti. I heteku . the ‘tiideii . tiM he w tL ap di ut .‘. t.i 1i h ci F “o ii i v on’ih e dout ‘ Li it Ilk l.i. inc .jJ . ‘‘ • • — i ‘‘‘! •‘t .1 : !. ir’111 . •I h •; I’ • •t •t :L. -“n - •-.. • : • I • _ I • , I I I it •i S S I t. S b.t .1)

1..I (1 t r • c. •. •: •, ,••. I • • 1 I . II Iareer I’:iidi of the apes tnrt. ii c lte”o9c ii held L’ut tiit’ ich the i’ e un’ptlofl a U ‘r Setion I W a tI’e t t’ ild tend to Ilk JbtJI inhiht . it’ t 01’ ‘I LI1 k ksu d .“i ‘I I c i. pJ at ‘! c Ltt; .d ‘n I tK ;MetIn)flio1i h icaiclin:’ e’ iJiiice ‘‘1 ‘I’’s ‘e.:rd. II’: had tendered e idenee in respect oh his delence and this lith ippreci ttd k the tria’ virt an holdin’t ih a the l)hesIIIIlptk)n iiidti Seen NI l39 h , beei itbutted 1 e idt.ix.s_ ol 11w I I ondent I hrefote na rnt tc!ald ft iotaht’ of thc1jrtumstance. it t i!.tint ne 5atd that the tr’..I t’)t’fl ‘a ;n titLar si. h. iii’ nc.ited iii. %‘‘II.rIa’’ .)g1 s’ i’ ••t (at II •I eu.’’ .1 1’t tI,Id%’ S: V J1d ‘ J it C iL • a • c ‘ • ‘I • i I • • I: •t. a • I I’ •[. • a • I I• i I• J - :1’ • ‘ I • • • a I. a- I I’ tiruint ii te that hc. appel iii v l’o i tid tO L i trance’ % J ii; a r’ il ion ‘‘ It • 1% ‘‘u.t:i: .‘ ni i ! :: t%r1Ittle9s .n,1J .1 •._.. ; I . otSkMktd I U .. ii al tou’t II ddei c et I .i I I ‘o there btng no tlansaction beteen Ox. appellant ‘nd the respondent .tnd that the heqLIe leaf js IllIUsCLI F thu ippellant intl Iheie 4 is no tinan%ial ipalt’ arl’.creI t that the appellant t hnt uth hut none and a “ t n t cheque leal could not h’ e ban isurned to ha bat .L1ctI it3 disehaige ofa legal IicibiIit i a ttrcutn’stance. hich ,\ er In th a a1 fl itt I he iiic’e I’tc’ iii a tne rcsp( ud ‘lit ha I •I I , •.‘.‘ I ...!.‘ .r’:’a !I. ;ei t1•1 t I’ ‘‘ :i I.1.t. — I ‘: _ • I .‘.d..: ‘;.. II ii ) I i. I. ‘I. L’t ‘ I . • Iil £ Ii I, • i S • • • I I ! : • —• 5% ‘I • ipipI0LI!in101111puijpniaitutruissqartojol LI,’ Ihqnqi11OLJII%diiiMjIJOliI’ULJ%L‘qia J.IMIOIgJ..I.Luiu) J1IiJ5fl’Z’q J.%fI,j .Jlpl)\uutt)fltlUna.1i(1.ujI 11qI ‘i1h.MJ 1) II ‘1 f)NIJIIJI .P.flI t.i1iunJN‘Ji .‘9 nilr‘t’qiirqzlrJ1suIu11titIi01p1J!nh4x’1isr1L1p1ukI.t 1Li.’puic’ds’u“((1J1LII’itzniiiddn‘tpu’wqsiLlo!pnsLs1u f ja)I1JlJJOuipJflq 1u11’Pu(1d’Z.’Mfglit’Iht1’IttXt’IfS!p.ir:’:’J1111La! rn&rraiJ’npjo1.M‘utiiinjktr‘qiilIpun ;iu;p.%ji) (it! Zq[)j’.ftj,;1’jii:l’put .jn’\bJr‘LiI h.’tI.\Ji”raI.‘tpI! —i‘PM”LIul!%13%’%r n I ‘%1HILl

1111.1qi’ j “Slt it.l P01hI 1 fuLl II I ) I .1 ‘ I 1 1 ‘ I 4 I I I I ( S j I I a I 1 ( ( I i I —St 14 the State. 11w same shall he payable within a period of three weeks from today and on default of’ which, the respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for sis months. Sdb 3TJDGE