Not filing I-T returns aids man’s acquittal in cheque bounce case
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court upheld the acquittal of an accused in a cheque bounce case on the ground that the complainant neither declared the loan given to him in I-T returns nor provided documents to show his source of income. Justice K Natarajan upheld the acquittal of N Shanth Kumar by the appellate court and dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Yeshwanth Kumar, resident of Azad Nagar in the city. Yeshwanth filed the appeal against Shanth Kumar’s acquittal by the District and Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court-IV on May 5, 2010.
The high court said that the complainant had only stated that he had given a hand loan but there was no document to show that he had any source of income and capacity to lend Rs 1 lakh to the accused. Being an income tax assessee, the complainant had not declared the said income to the Income Tax Authority and had not produced any document in the court, the high court said.
The court also said that the complainant had not produced any document to show that he had cash in his possession to lend it to the accused. Therefore, the complainant’s contention that the accused borrowed the amount and he was unable to pay it back was not acceptable, the court said. According to the judgment, the complainant and the accused knew each other. The accused borrowed Rs 1 lakh from the complainant in April 2008 and issued a cheque dated October 20, 2008 for the same sum. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement as ‘insufficient funds’.
As money was not paid, the complaint filed the case before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate which convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay Rs 1.10 lakh as fine. This was challenged by the accused before the appellate court which set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence on May 23, 2009. The complainant moved the high court against this judgment.
Auto driver didn’t know vehicle number!
The HC said that the complainant had admitted in the cross-examination that he was earning Rs 300-400 per day as auto driver, and had to pay Rs 150 per day towards rent to the owner. He also stated that he did not know the registration number of his auto. This admission proved that if the complainant was really running an auto on rent, then he would have known its number and the owner’s name. Actually he could have bought an auto, which could have cost not more than Rs 1 lakh in 2008. Hence, his contention that he had Rs 1 lakh in his house cannot be acceptable, the court said.