AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 821
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns Judge's Court in its order dated 24-03-2015 dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court dated 01-10-2013 in C.C. No. 1524/2011. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused has preferred this revision petition. 2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court is that, the accused was one of the trustees of a Trust by name 'Karunya Charitable and Medical Services Trust', which was formed for the upliftment of children, youth, woman and senior citizens. The Trust was collecting subscription from the persons who wanted to become members. The complainant was one of the members of the said Trust and also head of one group of about 150 women and she has collected subscriptions from the said persons and paid to the Trust. Under the gratuitous Scheme of the beneficiary of the Trust, it was promised to give 21 cows, 11 sheep, 1 sewing machine to the said members, who are the residents of kallugundi locality and a program was fixed to be held on 25-04-2011 at Kallugundi of Sullia Taluk. But the Trust failed to conduct the said program and did not give the benefits to the beneficiaries, in turn, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Court. Though this matter was listed for orders on I.A., however, as desired by the learned counsels from both side, the arguments on the main matter itself were heard from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records. 8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 9. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is: Whether the judgments under revision are perverse, illegal and erroneous, warranting interference at the hands of this Court? 10. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner was a trustee of the Karunya Charitable and Medical Services Trust, and that the present respondent, who was the complainant in the Trial Court was a member of the said Trust., According to the complainant, being a leader of a team of members of a place called Kallugundi, she had collected the subscriptions from those members who had remitted the same to the Trust. The said Trust had undertaken to deliver certain numbers of cows, sheep, sewing machi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;s Court and also in the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court are all the same address, as such, it is established that the complainant issued the notice to the correct address of the accused. The said notice was also tendered at the said address of the addressee. Therefore, the accused now cannot contend that there was no notice issued to her. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that, no statutory notice was issued by the complainant to the accused, is not acceptable. 15. The second and the main point of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused is that, there was no legally enforceable debt towards the complainant, as such, the cheque at Ex. P-1 cannot be considered as issued towards any legally enforceable debt. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant in his argument submitted that, the very evidence of the complainant that towards the amount payable to the complainant and the other beneficiaries who were inducted into the Trust under the leadership of the complainant, the cheque was issued, which is further corroborated from the letter at Ex. D-1, which shows that, there existed a legally enfor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as "the Cr.P.C."), is said to have filed her statement along with a copy of the alleged Amendment Deed of the Trust, still, the said alleged Amendment Deed of Trust has neither been marked as an exhibit nor confronted to PW-1 in her evidence. As such, the complainant had no opportunity to go through the said document and to either admit it or to dispute the same. Still, considering the contention of the accused that she (complainant) had come out of the Trust on 05-04-2011, as mentioned in the said Trust Deed, it can be noticed that even according to the accused, though the cheque at Ex. P-1 is dated 27-04-2011, but it was given to the complainant on 19-01-2011 itself as could be seen from Ex. D-1-letter. Ex. D-1 is a letter of acknowledgment shown to have been submitted to the Trust by the complainant on 19-01-2011, acknowledging the receipt of the cheque at Ex. P-1 with respect to the dischargal of the liability of the Trust towards the complainant and other members said to have been admitted to the membership of the Trust through the complainant. The said document was produced by none else than the accused herself which means the accused has admitted that, the complainant has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....22. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused also contended that the Trial Court did not consider Ex. D-1 and accepting the evidence of PW-1, proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. He also contended that, if at all any liability is there towards the complainant, it is not by the accused, but it is by the Trust. Even the said argument of the learned counsel of the petitioner is also not acceptable for the reason that, a perusal of the impugned judgments would go to show that, both the Trial Court as well as the Sessions Judge's Court, after considering the entire evidence placed be both side, both oral and documentary placed before them, in their proper perspective, have arrived at the final finding, holding the accused alone as liable, as such guilty of the offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I. Act. Further, even though the complainant's main grievance is against the Trust, but according to the complainant, the accused alone was the only active Trustee in the said Trust and that the cheque in question was also given to her by the accused herself, holding herself as the sole responsible person. The said statement made by PW-1 in her examination-in-chief has not been spec....