Tiêu đề Criminal Appeal - Krishna (for 2024).docx ✅

IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973) IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: AT BENGALURU C.C. No.9857/2009 IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU Crl. Appeal No. /2010 RANK OF PARTIES IN )( )( Between:- Trial Court Sessions Court 1) M/s. Bengaluru Power Systems No. 39, 3 rd Main, 1 st Cross, Whitefield, Bengaluru – 560 030 Represented by its Managing Director Mr.Anilkumar Accused-1 Appellant 2) Mr.Dhananjay Managing Director M/s. Bengaluru Power Systems No. 39, 3 rd Main, 1 st Cross, Whitefield, Bengaluru – 560 030 Accused-2 Appellant And:- M/s. Ghanshyam Enterprises, Proprietor, Mr. Sunil No.30, Vinayak Nagar, Bengaluru-560 076 Complainant Respondent *****

3 respondent filed the complaint. That the trial court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused/appellant. The appellant herein has entered appearance and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently upon recording evidence and hearing the arguments on both the sides, the trial Court passed the impugned Judgment convicting the appellant for the alleged offence vide its judgment dated 11-03-2010. Hence this Appeal. GROUNDS 5. The impugned Judgment and conviction passed by the learned Magistrate is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law, and the same is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. 6. The Court below has committed a grave error in not appreciating the evidence and documents on record in its proper perspective. 7. The Court below has failed to take note of the fact that the cheques were issued in respect of an invoice as post dated cheques, wherein as on the date of issue of cheques there was no liability on the part of the appellant to discharge any legally recoverable debt to the complainant/respondent. As such the cheques ought not to have been presented for encashment and based on the dishonour of the said cheques, the trial court should not have taken cognizance under Sec.138 of the NI Act. 8. That the trial court has also grossly erred in considering the defence of the appellant that there is dispute between the respondent and appellant in so far as quality of the batteries so supplied under the invoice and the appellant having returned the defective batteries to the appellant, there was no subsisting liability to the extent of the cheque amount and the trial court having not considered the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 9. Though the trial court accepts the contention of the appellant regarding supply of defective batteries the trial court while reasoning has miserably failed in
4 concluding on a wrong perception and there by convicted the accused. Upon perusal of the reasoning, it is crystal clear that the trial court has come to a wrong conclusion and assigns its own reasons, which is not on record or canvassed by the respondent. 10. The trial court has erred in disbelieving the appellant’s evidence and the fact that the alleged cheque was issued towards security in good faith against the proposed delivery of goods and has heavily relied upon the version of the complainant, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 11. The trial court has also failed to take note of the fact that the entire case of the complainant is that the cheques were issued towards the discharge of invoice amount and the invoices are blank in various columns which undoubtedly establishes that the invoices were fake and fabricated but in spite of eliciting the same through the complainant, the trial court has failed to consider the same which is wholly illegal and contrary to law. 12. The trial court has failed to consider the cogent evidence placed by the appellant and its witnesses on record and thus erred in passing the order of conviction instead of acquittal. 13. That in all probabilities the complaint ought to have been dismissed, as the only remedy available to the complainant was to file a civil suit for its grievances, as the complainant has not made out any case or grounds to be prosecuted under the provisions of 138 NI Act. 14. The Trial Court has erred by arriving at the decision merely on assumptions and presumptions regarding the transaction without proper appreciation of the evidence with a pre-determined mind convicted the appellant for the alleged offence, without any legal basis.