SRINIVASA KUMAR V.K. Vs. S.T. GOVINDARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has failed to comply with the office objections, which are of a minor nature. The counsel for the petitioner remains absent. The Counsel for the respondent also remains absent. Therefore, the petition is considered on merits. The petitioner was the complainant before the trial court alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act', for brevity). It was the claim of the petitioner that the respondent had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - dated 2.6.2006, which was towards refund of a loan that had been borrowed and the same when presented for encashment, had been dishonoured and therefore, the complaint.

(2.) THE matter was contested. The respondent set up a defence that the respondent had been attacked with deadly weapons and when he had fallen unconscious, the petitioner had stolen a cheque leaf and had forged the same in seeking to set up the claim. This defence was carried to an extent where the complainant was cross -examined at length and the respondent -accused had also tendered evidence in support of his defence. The trial court has addressed the same and has rejected the defence and has convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,50,000/ - and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The fine amount in a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/ - was to be paid as compensation to the complainant. That having been carried in appeal, the appellate court has reversed the trial court's finding, while placing reliance on a judgment of the apex court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, AIR 2008 SC 1325 , which is no longer good law. Even assuming that the same held the field as on the date of the judgment of the appellate court, since the ratio laid down in that case is not applicable, the petition is summarily allowed and the matter is remanded to the appellate court for a reconsideration.