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:
NC: 2024:KHC:30147
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
NC: 2024:KHC:30147
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 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30147
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:30147
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/-
