LexK. SUBRAMANI versus K. DAMODARA NAIDU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2014] 11 S.C.R. 169 K. SUBRAMANI v. K. DAMODARA NAIDU (Criminal Appeal No. 2402 of 2014) NOVEMBER 13, 2014 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] A B Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138 - Complaint under - Acquittal by trial court - High Court remanded the C matter for retrial - Held: Trial court rightly acquitted the accused holding that the complainant failed to prove that there was legally recoverable debt payable to the accused - Therefore, order of High Court remanding the case for retrial is unsustainable. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: On a consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence the trial court came to the conclusion that the complainant had no source of income E to lend a sum of Rs.14 lakhs to the accused and he failed to prove that there is legally recoverable debt payable by the accused to him. The said conclusion of the trial court has been arrived at on proper appreciation of material evidence on record. The impugned judgment of remand made by the High Court is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. [para 9-1 OJ [173-F-H] Rangappa VS. sri mohan 2010 (11) sec 441: 2010 (6) SCR 507 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2010 (6) SCR 507 referred to Para 5 169 F G H 170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R .• A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2402 of 2014. From the Judgment & Order dated 10.10.2013 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. Appeal No. 368 of B 2009 . c . Girish Ananthamurthy, Vaijayanthi Girish for the Appellant. Anand Sanjay M., Nuli & Nuli for the Respondent. • The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at o Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.368 of 2009 wherein the High Court set aside the judgment of acquittal of the trial court and remanded the case to the trial court for retrial. 3. The respondent herein/complainant and the appellant/ accused y.tere working as lecturers in a Government College E at Bangalore. The case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed a loan of Rs.14 lakhs in cash on 1.12.1997 from him to start granite business, promising to repay the same with 3% interest per month on demand and issued post-dated cheque dated 30.11.2000 for sum of Rs.29, 12,000/- which included F principal and interest and few days prior to presentation of the cheque on its due date to bank for encashment, the accused requested him not to present the cheque and took extension of time of another three years for repayment and finally issued a cheque dated 16.08.2005 for a sum of Rs,i'.3,83,552/- which G included principal and interest. The complainant presented 'the cheque on 19.8.2005 for encashment to his banker and it was dishonored with an endorsement 'fund insufficient' and the complainant issued legal notice on 12.9.2005 demanding repayment within 15 days from the date of its receipt thereof H and accused sent reply but failed to comply with the demand • K. SUBRAMANI v. K. DAMODARA NAIDU [C. NAGAPPAN, J.] 171 and the complainant lodged complaint under Section 138 of the A Negotiable Instrument Act, against the accused. 4. In the trial the complainant examined himself as PW1 B and examined CWs1 and 2 on his side and marked documents Exh. P1 to P23. The accused examined himself as DW1 and marked documents Exhs. 01 to 05. The trial court held that the complainant had no source of income to lend a sum of Rs.14 lakhs to the accused and he failed to prove that there is legally recoverable debt payable by the accused to him and that in discharge of said liability he issued the cheque and accordingly C acquitted the accused for the alleged offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Aggrieved by the same the complainant preferred appeal in the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.368 of 2009, and the High Court heard the appeal along with 9 other appeals by framing two legal issues which are as under: " i) Whether an action under Section 138 of the N. I. Act for dishonor of cheque is the complainant required to establish his financial capacity to lend money? D ii) \/Viii not presumption under Section 139 of the N.1. Act E accrues to the benefit of the complainant unless the accused rebuts that presumption?" 5. Relying on the ratio laid down by this. Court in the decision in Rangappa vs. Sri M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.