The Karnataka High Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C, praying to set aside the judgment passed by the Additional Small Causes Judge and Additional Metropolitan Magistrate. The Court observed that the complainant has not proved or produced any documents to substantiate the existence of liability mentioned in the cheque.
Brief Facts:
The first accused is a Private Limited Company, the second accused is its Managing Director. The complainant was carrying on publicity and advertisement business under the name and style as ‘Add-India Advertising’. In the year April 1999, Mr.K.H.Bukhari, the then Managing Director of M/s.Diamond Group of Companies and the Managing Director Sri.P.B. Abdul Rehaman approached the complainant in respect of hiring cum purchasing the publicity hoardings. There was an agreement between them on 14.04.1999 with regard to hiring and purchasing the hoardings. Pursuant to the said agreement, on 29.07.1999, both the parties entered into Memorandum of Understanding. It is further stated that the respondent failed to implement the said agreement due to which he was liable to pay a sum of Rs.2.50 Crores. The matter was settled pursuant to which a cheque for a sum of Rs.73.00 lakhs was issued to the appellant. When it was presented for encashment, the appellant received an endorsement issued by the Bank as “Stop payment”. The trial court acquitted the accused. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is contrary to the facts, evidence and law. Hence, the same is required to be set aside. He contended that when the liability and signature are admitted by the respondents, the Trial Court could have raised the presumption in favour of the appellant and conviction could have been recorded against the respondents.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the cheque in question was obtained through the police. When the cheque was obtained, accused No.2 was not there in the office. PW1 has admitted that he, along with HAL Police Station Inspector, had been to the office of the accused No.2 and obtained the cheque forcefully.
The Court noted that the Appellate Court can interfere in a case of appeal against acquittal only if it is noticed that there is perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
The Court observed that the accused had rebutted the presumption in respect of how the cheque was issued to the complainant. However, the complainant has not proved or produced any documents to substantiate the existence of liability mentioned in the cheque. Therefore, it can be inferred that the complainant has not proved the case and the Trial Court rightly appreciated and held that the accused is not liable to pay the cheque amount which is appropriate and it is not required to be interfered.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that there is no merit in the appeal.
Case Title: Sadiq Suhale v M/S Diamond Publicities (India) P. Ltd. & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S Rachaiah
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2011 (A)
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Kiran S Javali
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. V B Shivakumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
