TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 1005
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat complainant Sri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited, filed a complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (herein after referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short) stating that accused being one of its customer had availed loan from it to purchase Mahindra make 2007 model vehicle bearing registration number KA-26/6026 under loan-cum- hypothecation agreement number GDG BRO0076201 for a total value of Rs. 1,36,604/-. The loan was agreed to repay in periodic installments. But accused defaulted in paying installments and was finally due to pay a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/-. Towards discharge of said due, accused issued cheque bearing No.270164 dated 01.12.2012 for Rs. 1,02,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Gadag Branch. When ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque as "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" and the complainant/company issued statutory notice and in-spite of service of statutory notice, the accused have not paid the cheque amount and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act? (2) What order? 6. After answering point No.1 in the negative, the trial Court proceeded to acquit the accused vide impugned judgment. Challenging the acquittal, the complainant is in appeal. 7. Learned counsel Sri R.H.Angadi, for appellant submitted that though a complaint was filed giving full details of loan transaction between complainant and accused and also produced the loan agreement, statement of account and also the cheque, ban....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat after accused defaulted in payment of loan installments, the vehicle was seized and sold to third party and realized a portion of dues and that on a demand for balance amount, accused issued cheque in consideration for due amount. Therefore, cheque was not issued as security for loan amount at the time of its sanction but was issued towards then existing outstanding due amount. Hence the reasons assigned by trial Court were perverse. 10. Learned counsel for appellant also relied upon a decision of this Court dated 09.06.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.100211/2015, wherein this Court remanded matter back to trial Court for fresh consideration by providing reasonable opportunity to both parties to lead evidence. 11. On other hand, lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmitted fact that complaint is filed by a power of attorney holder, on behalf of Company. In the complaint, only averment made with regard to knowledge of complainant is contained in para 1 of complaint which reads as follows: "1. That, complainant institution is a company incorporated and registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the vehicle finance business under the name and style as M/S. SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD., represented by its authorized signatory and power of attorney holder, is acquainted with the facts of the complaint, has verified and signed the complaint". (emphasis supplied) 15. In view of authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.C.Narayanan's case (supra), point....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kishan Rao V/s Shankargouda, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 165, referring to earlier decision in the case of Kumar Exports V/s Sharma Carpets, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 513, that: "The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the trial Court firstly regarding filing of complaint through a power of attorney and examination of power of attorney as witness, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.C.Narayanan's case (supra) would hold good. The finding of the trial Court that the cheque in question was a post dated cheque, given as security is also found unsubstantiated by any evidence. Therefore, the reasons assigned by trial Court for acquittal are not only contrary to law but also the evidence on record and liable to be held as perverse. Hence, point no.(ii) is answered in the negative and in favour of complainant. 20. Though appellant has relied upon decision dated 09.06.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.100211/2015, it is seen that the Court did....