Karnataka High Court
M/S Tristar Detective And ... vs The Managing Director on 18 November, 2023
Bench: G Basavaraja
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:41484
CRL.A No. 1318 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1318 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
M/S. TRISTAR DETECTIVE AND ASSOCIATES,
NO.140/B, 18,19, 19/1, 3RD FLOOR,
9TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD,
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560 003.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI. M.B. CHINNAPPA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
signed by
SANDHYA S M/S. ADITHYA DESIGNS PVT.LTD.,
Location: High NO.72/1, NAGAVARA MAIN ROAD,
Court of
Karnataka THANISANDRA,
BANGALORE - 560 045.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
M/S. ADITHYA DESIGNS PVT.LTD.,
NO.72/1, NAGAVARA MAIN ROAD,
THANISANDRA,
BANGALORE - 560 045.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (ABSENT)
R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:41484
CRL.A No. 1318 of 2016
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.03.2016
PASSED BY THE V ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIV
A.C.M.M., COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MAYOHALL UNIT
BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.18182/2014 - ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 AND
141 OF N.I. ACT AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The complainant/appellant M/s. Tristar Detective
and Associates has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of acquittal dated 26.03.2016 passed in
C.C.No.18182/2014 by the Court of V Addl. Small Causes
Judge & 24th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Mayohall, Bangalore.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
appeal are referred to as per their status and rank before
the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of complainant that the
complainant is a partnership firm, registered under the
Registrar of Firms, carrying on the business of providing
NC: 2023:KHC:41484
CRL.A No. 1318 of 2016
security services and other allied services to its
customers/clients. Accused No.1 is the Managing Director
of M/s. Adithya Designs Pvt., Ltd., and accused No.2 is one
of the Director of the said company. They are running
garment business, having their factory premises at different
places in Bangalore. Accordingly, during the course of their
business, the defendants have approached the complainant
firm to provide the security services to its factory premises,
which are situated at three places namely, Thanisandra,
Sunkadakatte and Shampura, Bangalore. Accordingly, the
complainant provided the said services as per their
requirements to the said units. Further, it is contended
that though the accused company was used to make
regular payment towards the service charges in respect of
monthly bills in the beginning, thereafter the accused
company became defaulter regarding payment of monthly
service charges. The accused company is liable to pay a
sum of Rs.2,41,453/-, a sum of Rs.3,12,200/- and a sum of
Rs.46,486/- in respect of Thanisandra, Sunkadakatte and
Shampura units respectively. In all, the accused has to pay
NC: 2023:KHC:41484
CRL.A No. 1318 of 2016
a sum of Rs.7,53,382/- to the complainant company as on
31.10.2013. In this regard, the complainant firm has made
number of correspondence and also expressed their
difficulties to pay monthly salary to their security staff.
4. It is further stated that on repeated requests and
demands by the complainant firm, the accused company
has issued four post dated cheques on 25.10.2013 bearing
No.320865 for a sum of Rs.61,182/-, No.320916 for a sum
of Rs.61,371/-, No.320866 for a sum of Rs.8,424/- and
No.320917 for a sum of Rs.9,460/- all are dated
10.11.2013 drawn on Canara Bank, Town Hall Branch,
Bangalore. When the complainant presented the said
cheques to the bank for encashment on 11.11.2013, the
same were returned with shara 'Instructions to stop
payment'. Thereafter, the legal notice was issued to the
accused on 07.12.2013 through RPAD and the same was
received by the accused on 11.12.2013 and the accused
has sent untenable reply to the said notice. Hence, the
complainant lodged complaint before the police.
NC: 2023:KHC:41484
CRL.A No. 1318 of 2016
5. The Trial Court took cognizance against the
accused for the commission of offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter referred to as 'N.I. Act' for short) and the case
was registered in C.C.No.18182/2014. In pursuance of
issue of summons, the accused No.2 Peter who is said to
be the Managing Director as well as Director of accused
No.1-Company appeared before the Trial Court and plea
was recorded. He was pleaded not guilty.
6. To substantiate the case of complainant, one
witness namely M.B. Chinnappa who is the Managing
Partner of the complainant got examined as PW.1 and 14
documents got marked as Exs.P1 to P14. On closure of
complainant side evidence, statement of the accused
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused
has denied the evidence of PW.1 and has admitted that he
is the Managing Director and authorised signatory of
M/s. Adithya Designs Pvt.Ltd. The accused is examined as
DW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. On
NC: 2023:KHC:41484
CRL.A No. 1318 of 2016
hearing the arguments, the Trial Court has acquitted the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
N.I. Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal,
the complainant/appellant has preferred this appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that the impugned judgment is not
supported by any sound reasoning and it suffers from
serious legal infirmities. The Trial Judge has ignored the
statutory presumption available to the
complainant/appellant under Section 139 of N.I.Act and
the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence
on record in accordance with law and facts. Further, he
submits that in para No.14 of the impugned judgment, the
Trial Court has observed that the complainant has
produced the partnership deed. To substantiate the same,
now the appellant has filed application under Section 391
of Cr.P.C. seeking to produce the additional evidence and
produced the certified copy of the authorization letter
issued by the complainant/appellant company, partnership
deed, deed of amendment and also the acknowledgment
NC: 2023:KHC:41484
CRL.A No. 1318 of 2016
of Registration of the Firm issued by the Registrar of
Firms. These documents are required to adjudicate the
matter in dispute and it is produced before the Civil Court
in respect of suit filed for recovery of money filed against
the same respondent/accused company. Hence, the
complainant/appellant did not produce the same before
the Trial Court. In this regard, the appellant filed affidavit
supported by the application filed under Section 391 of
Cr.P.C. On all these grounds, he sought to allow this
appeal by remanding the matter to the Trial Court to
dispose of the case after considering the additional
evidence to be filed by the appellant/complainant.
8. Respondent's counsel remained absent. Hence,
arguments on behalf of respondent's side is taken as nil.
9. Having heard the arguments of appellant's
counsel, the following points would arise for my
consideration:
NC: 2023:KHC:41484
CRL.A No. 1318 of 2016
i. Whether the application in I.A.No.1/2021
filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. seeking
to produce additional documents requires
consideration?
ii. What order?
10. My finding to the above points are as under:
i. In the affirmative
ii. as per final order
Regarding Point No.1:
11. I have carefully examined the materials placed
before this Court.
12. On perusal of the impugned judgment at para
No.14, the Trial Court has observed that the complainant
has not produced the authorization letter issued by the
complainant/appellant company, partnership deed, deed of
amendment and also the acknowledgment of Registration
of the Firm issued by the Registrar of Firms. In response
to this, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
NC: 2023:KHC:41484
CRL.A No. 1318 of 2016
these documents were produced before the Civil Court and
he could not produce the same before the Trial Court
under the impression that those documents are not
required. Since the Trial Court expressed its opinion as to
the production of these materials, the
appellant/complainant has filed application under Section
391 of Cr.P.C. along with affidavit and produced necessary
documents in this regard. Accepting the reasons assigned
in the application, it is just and proper to provide one
more opportunity to the appellant/complainant to produce
these additional evidences before the Trial Court which are
required to adjudicate the matter in dispute in accordance
with law. Hence, I answer the point No.1 in affirmative.
Regarding Point No.2:
13. For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
1. Appeal allowed.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:41484
CRL.A No. 1318 of 2016
2. The judgment dated 26.03.2016 passed in
C.C.No.18182/2014 by the Court of the V
Addl. Small Causes Judge & 24th Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall Unit,
Bangalore is set aside.
3. The application filed under Section 391 of
Cr.P.C. seeking to produce additional
documents by the complainant/appellant is
allowed.
4. The case is remanded to the Trial Court with
a direction to provide one more opportunity
to the complainant/appellant to adduce his
additional evidence as sought for in
I.A.No.1/2021 filed under Section 391 of
Cr.P.C.
5. The Trial Court is directed to provide one
more opportunity to both the parties to
adduce any further additional evidence and
thereafter the Trial Court shall proceed with
the case in accordance with law.
6. The Trial Court is directed to secure the
accused/respondent and thereafter proceed
with the case in accordance with law.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:41484
CRL.A No. 1318 of 2016
7. The complainant/appellant is directed to
appear before the Trial Court on 12.12.2023
without seeking further notice from the Trial
Court.
8. Registry is directed to send a copy of this
judgment along with additional documents
produced by the complainant/appellant and
also the application filed under Section 391
of Cr.P.C. to the Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSD
