Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 894 (KAR)

M. Chandran v. Rajanna Gowda

2013-08-08

A.S.PACHHAPURE

body2013
Judgment : 1. Though the matter is posted for hearing on the interlocutory application, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the matter is taken up for admission. 2. The appellant is said to have advanced a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent on 10-6-2007 and towards repayment, a cheque dated 10-10-2007 for a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- drawn on State Bank of India was given to the appellant. When the cheque was presented, it returned with an endorsement ‘account closed’. The appellant issued a notice and as the respondent did not pay the amount, a complaint was filed in the Trial Court to initiate action against the respondent for the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the Trial Court, the complainant is examined as P.W. 1 and the Bank Manager is examined as P.W. 2. Documents Exs. P. 1 to P. 10 are marked. The respondent has got marked Exs. D. 1 and D. 2. 3. The Trial Court after hearing the Counsel for the parties has acquitted the respondent for the charge, aggrieved by which the present appeal is filed. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 5. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the account of the respondent in the bank was closed at the instance of the Commercial Tax Department which seized the money in the said account and this closure was in the year 2005 in pursuance of the letter of the Commercial Tax Department dated 5-8-2004. So the closure of the account is at the instance of the Commercial Tax Department. Under such circumstances, a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act cannot be maintained. It is for the said reason, the Trial Court has rightly granted the order of acquittal to the respondent. That apart, it is the case of the respondent that his name is not Rajanna Gowda and the evidence of P.W. 2 reveals that the account was standing in the name of C.M. Gowda. This is also one of the grounds on which the complaint came to be rejected. 6. Perusal of the material placed on record does not reveal any ground to admit this appeal. 7. This is also one of the grounds on which the complaint came to be rejected. 6. Perusal of the material placed on record does not reveal any ground to admit this appeal. 7. Though the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he has right to approach the Court for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, it is for the appellant to take appropriate steps which he deems appropriate under the law. In the result, the appeal fails and it is dismissed with the aforesaid observation. As the matter is taken up for hearing regarding admission, I.A. No. 1 of 2013 and I.A. No. 2 of 2013 does not survive for consideration and hence they are disposed of.