TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 851
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MFC, Koratagere in CC No.35/2010 and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered simple imprisonment for a period of one year and directed the accused to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.PC., 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Revision Petition are as under: The complaint came to be filed u/s.200 Cr.PC., read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act contending that during the month of April, 2009, for the family necessities, accused approached the complainant for a financial assistance of Rs. 1,15,000/-. Complainant advanced the same to the accused and on the same day, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....incriminating materials put to him. For question No.8, which is pertaining to examination of witnesses on behalf of the accused, he has answered that 'he would examine a witness'. The accused also got himself examined as DW-1 and produced the statement of accounts which were exhibited and marked as Ex.D1. 5. Learned Magistrate on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accused has committed an offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and connected him for the said offence and awarded the sentence as referred to supra. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Magistrate, the accused preferred an appeal on the file of the IV Additional District an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the courts and thus sought for allowing the appeal. 9. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has relied on the judgment of this court in the case of B Krishna Reddy Vs. B.K. Somashekara Reddy reported in 2007 (2) DCR 391 which has been held as under: "Held: Negotiable Instruments Act declares that "any material alteration of negotiable instrument renders the same void as against any one who is a party thereto at the time of making such alteration and does not consent thereto, unless it was made in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties". If the endorsee were to make an alteration, the liability of the endorser is discharged. It is mandatory that in order to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... marked as Ex.P1 as to the date 28.05.2008 has been altered as 28.05.2009 which is visible to the naked eye. However, there is a signature underneath the said correction. In this regard, PW-1 was cross examined extensively. The defence taken by the accused is that while he was proceeding in a Car, he met with an accident, wherein he lost the cheques and one of those cheques have been mis-used by the complainant. In the cross examination of PW-1, he has answered that accused has obtained the loan in the month of April, 2009. In the complaint averments also, it has been clearly mentioned that accused borrowed money in the month of April, 2009. When such is the factual aspects, the alteration as to the date which has been found on Ex.P1 from 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the courts in the impugned judgments, do not suffer from legal infirmity so as to interfere with the same in this Revision Petition there cannot be any dispute as to the principles of law enunciated in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. But the facts in the said case and the facts of the case on hand are altogether different and in the absence of any positive evidence placed by the accused, the finding recorded and the alteration found in Ex.P1 signed by accused is not a material alteration and therefore, the said decision, principles cited in the said case is not of much avail to the revision to seek an order of interference by this court. REGARDING POINT NO.2: 17. The Trial Court while passing the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....compensation is awarded in a matter of this nature, it is needless to emphasize that the accused must be sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and out of the fine amount, but the Trial Court has not fined the accused and passed an order of imprisonment for one year. Though there is a serious legal flaw in such an evidence, the first Appellate Court unfortunately did not bestow its attention to correct the same. The Trial Court did not assign any reasons for ordering the imprisonment of one year while dealing with Point No.2. 20. It is well settled principle of law and requires no emphasis that assigning the reasons to reach a conclusion is a cine qua non. In fact, the reasons are heart beat of any judgment. This aspect of the matter is ....