The appellant, original complainant, filed a criminal appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. challenging an acquittal in a Cheque Bounce case. The High Court held that since the demand notice was not served, there was no infirmity in the trial court dismissing the complaint, and the appeal was dismissed.
Criminal Appeal numbered 1951 of 2021 was dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1951 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
Sri Subramanya S/o Late Krishnappa Aged about 49 years R/o Behind Brahmin’s Hostel Salagame Road Hassan-573201.
…Appellant
(By Sri H.J. Ananda, Advocate)
AND:
Sri H.V. Yogesh S/o Venkatesh Setty Aged about 46 years R/o behind MSIL, Vivek Nagar Ring Road, Hassan-573201 Presently R/at No.338, Northern Extension Aralikatte Hassan-573201.
…Respondent (By Sri P.P. Jayakumara, Advocate)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment dated 21.03.2020 in C.C.No.395/2018 passed by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan acquitting
:: 2 ::
the respondent for the offence P/U/S.138 of NI Act and etc,.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard the appellant’s counsel. This appeal is filed by the complainant, challenging the judgment of acquittal. The respondent herein is the accused in C.C.No.395/2018 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan. The respondent was prosecuted by the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
:: 3 ::
sent and at that time he was residing in a house situated in Northern Division, Aralikatte, Hassan. Therefore the trial court is of the opinion that presumption as regards deemed service of notice cannot be drawn. It is also observed that the accused was not cross examined on the documents that he produced in proof of his actual and correct address.
:: 4 ::
right in drawing an inference that probably
demand notice sent by the complainant after dishonor of the cheque was not served on the respondent. In this view, I do not find any infirmity in dismissing the complaint as there was no service of notice at all. I do not find a ground to admit this appeal. Therefore appeal is
dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
Kmv/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient infirmity exists in the trial court's acquittal to admit the criminal appeal regarding lack of service of demand notice.
Whether the presumption of deemed service of notice can be drawn given the evidence of alternative addresses and lack of cross-examination.
Whether the dismissal of the complaint due to irregular notice service is legally sustainable against the appellant's appeal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Subramanya S/o Late Krishnappa
Sri H.V. Yogesh S/o Venkatesh Setty
Sreenivas Harish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
