Karnataka High Court
M/S Shriram Transport Co. Ltd vs M Mohammed Rafiq on 31 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30147
CRL.A No. 3 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2013 (A)
BETWEEN:
M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT
FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.123, ANAGAPPA NAIKEN STREET
CHENNAI
AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.29/A, 2ND FLOOR
K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER
Digitally
signed by SRI. NAGABHUSHAN M.C.
NANDINI B G ...APPELLANT
Location: high court
of karnataka (BY SRI. M. ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
M. MOHAMMED RAFIQ
S/O U.P. MODEEN
MAJOR, NO.1-106
SALEEM COTTAGE
PERMANNUR POST
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P. KARUNAKAR, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:16.10.12
PASSED BY THE XIX ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.13553/07
- ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30147
CRL.A No. 3 of 2013
ORAL JUDGMENT
The complainant in CC No.13553 of 2007 on the file of the learned XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, is impugning the judgment dated 16.10.2012 acquitting the respondent - accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
3. Both the learned counsel for the parties are absent. No representation. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.
4. On going through the materials placed on record, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the appellant has made out any grounds for allowing the appeal and to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30147 CRL.A No. 3 of 2013 REASONS
5. It is the contention of the complainant before the Trial Court that the accused had entered into an agreement with the complainant - Company while availing the loan and agreeing to repay the same in installments by hypothecating the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-25-A-9632. Towards payment of the installments, the accused has issued the cheque in question marked as Ex.P2 on 27.12.2006 for Rs.5,50,000/-. When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned dishonored as there was insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Even though legal notice was issued and served on the accused, there was neither reply nor he had repaid the cheque amount, thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.
6. The accused has appeared before the Trial Court and contested the matter. The complainant examined the general power of attorney holder as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 in support of its contention. The accused has not led any evidence nor produced any documents in support of his -4- NC: 2024:KHC:30147 CRL.A No. 3 of 2013 defence, except stating that Ex.P2 - cheque was obtained by the complainant as security while entering into the agreement Ex.P12.
7. It is pertinent to note that as per Ex.P12, the agreement is a Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement entered into between M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Mangaluru, being the lender and the accused as the borrower along with the guarantor. The transaction has taken place at Mangaluru and the accused is the resident of Mangaluru. As per Ex.P12 all the dispute arising out of the agreement shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Courts at Mangaluru. The complainant is M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd., Regional Office, Bengaluru, Represented by its General Power of Attorney Holder and the complaint was filed before the Trial Court at Bengaluru.
8. The contention taken by the complainant to file and maintain the complaint at Bengaluru is that the accused had came to the Regional office and had handed over the cheque - Ex.P2 towards repayment of the installments. When the agreement was entered into between the complainant - -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:30147 CRL.A No. 3 of 2013 Company, Branch at Mangaluru and the accused is the permanent resident of Mangaluru, I do not find any justification for the accused to come all the way to Bengaluru and to hand over the cheque to the complainant - Company.
9. It is also pertinent to note that the legal executive representing the complainant - Company had stepped into the witness box and deposed as PW1. He specifically sates during cross examination that he has no personal knowledge about the transaction that had taken place in the present case and he is deposing only on the basis of record that are available. Under such circumstances, the contention of the complainant that the cheque in question was handed over by the accused in Bengaluru, cannot be accepted.
10. The appellant is not represented by its counsel and no argument is addressed to substantiate the grounds taken in memorandum of appeal. On perusal of the materials on record, I do not find any justification for the complainant to file and maintain the complaint before the Trial Court at Bengaluru. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:30147 CRL.A No. 3 of 2013
11. I have gone through the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into consideration all the oral and documentary evidence placed before it and has arrived at a right conclusion by assigning valid reasons. It cannot be said that the impugned judgment is either perverse or illegal. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/-List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1