RAMESH CHINNAPPA HANCHINAMANI Vs. GANGAPPA G KAMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-complainant has challenged the order passed by the trial court in rejecting the complaint.

(2.) The subject matter of the complaint is that the accused has not repaid Rs.50,000/- the worth of the sarees purchased by him. The evidence of P.W.1 who is none other than the complainant is to the effect that the accused has made purchase of sarees worth Rs.25,000/- in the morning and handed over a cheque for the said amount, thereafter, two hours later again he came back and purchased sarees worth Rs.25,000/- and issued the second cheque for the said amount. In the evidence it is stated that the accused gave two cheques for Rs.25,000/- each for having purchased sarees worth Rs.50,000/- at two instances. He has marked Ex.P.9, the receipt for having purchased sarees worth Rs.50,000/-. Ex.P.9A is the signature of the complainant. This evidence of P.W.1-complainant has been examined and the opinion of the trial court is that, it does not corroborate with Ex.P.9, the receipt which has been produced and marked on behalf of the complainant.

(3.) The complainant's case is that accused has purchased sarees worth Rs.25,000/- at two instances. If that is so, there should have been two bills marked on behalf of complainant. The evidence should always corroborate with the materials produced and marked on behalf of the party deposing. When evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that accused has purchased sarees on two instances, necessarily there should have been two receipts marked and produced. In the instant case, Exs.P.9 and 9A reveals as if accused has made purchase of sarees worth Rs.50,000/- at a time, but this does not corroborate in his evidence. The evidence is otherwise than the exhibit.