IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.231 OF 2018 BETWEEN VASANTH KUMAR S/O CHANDRACHAR, R/AT BEHIND KAVERI SAW MILLS, KAVERINAGARA, IN FRONT OF SHANESHWAR TEMPLE, KEMPANAHALLI-577 101 CHIKKAMAGALURU.
(BY SRI GURURAJ R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANT AND C B KRISHNACHAR S/O BASAVACHAR, R/O BEHIND TATCMS RICE MILL, MARKET ROAD-577 101 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHIKKAMAGALUR IN C.C.NO. 506/2015 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I.ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The appellant-complainant is before this Court assailing the judgment dated 13.12.2017, passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagalur, in C.C.No.506/2015.
2. Though the respondent-accused is served, he has remained unrepresented.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had lent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent-accused, since the respondent requested the appellant that he requires the money for conducting marriage of his daughter. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the complaint filed by the appellant has been rejected solely on the ground that the appellant has not produced any documents or materials to substantiate his contention that he had the financial capacity to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent-accused. While drawing attention of this Court to the paragraph 16 of the judgment, learned counsel submits that the appellant-PW.1 had stated during his cross-examination that he had annual income of Rs.3,00,000/- and he possessed 2½ acres of land where he was cultivating vegetables and Ragi. However, it is an admitted fact that the appellant has not produced any documents to substantiate such a contention. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant prays that the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court and an opportunity may be afford to the appellant to substantiate his contention that he had financial capacity to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent-accused.
In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 13.12.2017, passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, in C.C.No.506/2015 is hereby quashed and set aside.
The trial Court is directed to issue notice to the respondent-accused and afford an opportunity to the appellant-complainant to produce additional documents to substantiate his contention that he had financial capacity to pay the respondent- accused.
The respondent-accused may be permitted to cross-examine the appellant-complainant and thereafter the trial court may proceed to pass judgment as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
Office is hereby directed to return the Lower Court Records to the trial Court, forthwith.
It is ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE DL