LAWS(KAR)-2019-12-194

CHOWDAIAH Vs. B.E. PRASHANTH

Decided On December 13, 2019
Chowdaiah Appellant
V/S
B.E. Prashanth Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant's/complainant's counsel is present and argued the matter in both cases. Respondent's counsel though served, remained absent in both cases. There was no representation on 29.10.2019. In order to provide an opportunity, this Court has made a specific order that if respondent's counsel do not turn up and assist the court, the appeal shall be disposed of after hearing the appellant/complainant. Even today, counsel for the respondent in the above said appeals remained absent. No representation. Hence, I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant in both the cases.

(2.) Before adverting to the legal point involved in these cases, it is just and necessary for this Court to have brief factual aspects of the case:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant strenuously contends that the first appellate court has not bestowed its attention sofar as the other matters are concerned and has not given any finding for acquitting the accused on any other ground. Therefore, it goes without saying that the findings given by the trial Court so-far as the issuance of cheque, dishonour of cheque and presentation of the cheque within time and admission of issuance of cheque by the accused are considered by the trial Court for the purpose of convicting the accused and the same has not been disturbed by the first appellate Court. Further, the first appellate Court has not considered any other ground of the accused for the purpose of acquitting the accused, except the ground that there was no legally enforceable debt as pleaded by the accused before the trial Court as well as before the first appellate Court. Therefore, this Court is only confined to consider 'whether the appellate Court is right in acquitting the accused on the ground that there was no legally enforceable debt established by the complainant before the trial Court'. It is also to be noted that the accused has not preferred any appeal or revision before this Court challenging the judgment of the first appellate Court while acquitting the accused only on the ground that the complainant has not established legally enforceable debt and not on any other ground for acquitting him. Therefore, the matters narrowed down to the ground 'whether the first appellate Court is right in acquitting the accused on the ground that the complainant has not established the existence of legally recoverable debt' and further that 'whether the first appellate Court has committed any error in not confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and not interfering with the sentence passed by the trial Court in enhancing the compensation or enhancing the fine amount as pleaded by the complainant before the trial Court'.