Criminal appeal against acquittal in a cheque bounce case. The High Court held that the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 by proving the cheque was issued as security for a past loan to the complainant's mother.
Acquittal of the respondent/appellant is upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1158 OF 2018
BETWEEN
SRI T.R.NAGARAJU S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O TAVARAKERE VILLAGE SIRA TALUK – 572 139 TUMAKURU DISTRICT … APPELLANT
[BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE]
AND
SRI SANNAHONNAPPA S/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O TAVARAKERE VILLAGE SIRA TALUK – 572 139 TUMAKURU DISTRICT
RETIRED AS PHYSICAL TEACHER GOVT SCHOOL, HUNASEHALLI VILLAGE SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT … RESPONDENT
[BY SRI SHIVARUDRAPPA SHETKAR, ADVOCATE]
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA IN C.C.NO.1923/2012 – ACQUITTING
2
THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, acquitting the accused/respondent of an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I Act’ for short).
complainant and the accused are known to each other. In the first week of October 2011, the accused for the purpose of his legal necessity requested the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and therefore the complainant paid the said amount to him on 15.10.2011. The accused had agreed to repay the amount within two months but he did
3
not keep his promise and became a defaulter. After several requests, accused issued a cheque bearing No. 523617 dated 20.12.2011 for the said amount, drawn on Canara Bank, Tavarekere, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District. The said cheque was presented to the bank as requested by the accused, through his banker namely Kaveri Kalpatharu Grameena Bank, Sira on 05.01.2012 for encashment. However, the said cheque was dishonoured on 14.01.2012 for funds insufficient. The same was informed to the complainant by his banker on 18.01.2012. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused on 24.01.2012 by RPAD and inspite of receipt of the notice, accused failed to reply to the said notice and also failed to
repay the amount mentioned in the cheque within the stipulated time and therefore the accused committed an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
4
with complainant’s mother namely Indramma and received a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. In this connection, he issued the cheque in question as security. He repaid the loan amount of Rs.1,10,000/- to Indramma, but the cheque was not returned, as such he issued Ex.D2- notice. Instead of returning the said cheque, the same was presented by the complainant. It is also contended that the complainant had no financial capacity to lend such a huge amount to the accused and there was no transaction between the complainant and accused.
5
therefore contends that the trial Court was not proper in acquitting the accused relying on the documents marked by the defence.
6
document-Ex.D1. DW.2 in her evidence has stated that she is aware that there was financial transaction between the accused and complainant’s parents and in this connection Ex.D1 was executed on 08.04.2009 and her husband K. Adimurthy is a signatory to the said document. She has identified the said signature. In the crossexamination it is not disputed by the complainant the she is not the wife of K. Adimurthy. PW.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused was doing financial transaction with his parents.
mentioned in Ex.D1 is the same cheque alleged to have been issued by the accused to the complainant/appellant. Further, the defence has got marked Ex.D2, a notice issued by the accused to parents of the complainant for returning the said cheque No.523617. It is clearly mentioned in the said notice that on 15.05.2008, the accused received a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- from them for interest at 5% and at that time the said cheque was given as security and inspite of receipt of full amount the cheque was not returned. The
7
said notice at Ex.D2 is dated 05.07.2010, which is much prior to the presentation of the cheque by the complainant. Hence, the complainant’s case that the accused approached him in the month of first week of October 2011 and requested for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and he paid the said amount on 15.10.2011 and in discharge of the said liability the accused issued the cheque in question appears to be doubtful.
JUDGE
Sd/-
HB/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands rebutted by the accused's defence.
Whether the findings of acquittal by the trial Court are perverse or illegal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI T.R.NAGARAJU
SRI SANNAHONNAPPA
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
