SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD., (EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD.), REPRESENTED BY ITS G.P.A. HOLDER AND OFFICER-LEGAL SRI. K. VASUDEVA Vs. SRI. KAREEM S/O ISMAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the complainant assailing the order passed by the v. JMFC, Mangalore, O.K., in C.C. No. 591/2006 dated 22.8.2008, in acquitting the accused and dismissing the complaint.

(2.) ACCORDING to the complainant, the accused having entered into hire purchase agreement with the complainant in respect of vehicle bearing No. KA -20 -3906, towards discharge of the said loan, had issued a cheque for Rs. 1,40,000/ - drawn on Federal Bank Ltd., Kodialbail, Mangalore, which on presentation, came to be dishonoured as 'account closed'. Accordingly, after issuance of legal notice, for non -payment, the complaint came to be filed. The trial Court, after enquiry, has taken note of the contention of the accused and certain of the documents produced on his behalf to the effect that the complainant -company at the time of entering into hypothecation agreement, had obtained blank cheques from the accused towards security and the same has been misused by filling up exorbitant amount. Further, taking into consideration the complainant has also seized the vehicle and sold the same despite the accused giving notice to the complainant not to sell the vehicle below Rs. 1,75,000/ -, the trial court has dismissed the complaint.

(3.) THE trial Court referring to the decision in M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala and Anr. reported in 2006(3) Crimes 117 wherein it is observed that, 'standard of proof would be preponderance of probabilities and could be drawn not only from material on record, but also reference to circumstances upon which he relied', and thus, accepting the contention of the accused, although has opined that the complaint is maintainable, but, on perusing further documents and also having noted that the vehicle was sold for Rs. 1,65,000/ - and the accused had also made payment of Rs. 92,000/ - i.e., in excess of the amount borrowed, holding that the complainant has filled up the excess amount dishonestly and the matter is civil in nature, has dismissed the complaint.