Criminal Appeal by complainant against acquittal in cheque bounce case. Single Judge Court held acquittal was correct as complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt in 2016 and came with impure hands regarding prior 2008 transactions. Appeal dismissed.
Acquittal of the respondent/appellant in the cheque bounce case was 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. DHARMALINGAIAH, S/O GURUSIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.87, 17TH MAIN ROAD, LAKSHMINAGARA J.C. NAGARA, KURUBARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 022.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVA KUMAR U, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI. T. GIRIYAPPA @ GIRISH, S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.34/1, 22ND MAIN ROAD, J.C. NAGARA, KURUBARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 086. ALSO WORKING AT FOREMEN TRAINING INSTITUTE, LAGGERE, TUMKUR ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 022.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. L.S. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.20218/2016 BY THE XXII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE THEREBY PASS AN ORDER OF CONVICTION DIRECTING THE ACCUSED TO PAY DOUBLE THE CHEQUE AMOUNT i.e.,RS.11,20,000/- IN RESPECT OF CHEQUE BEARING NO.869163 DATED 11.07.2016 DRAWN ON 'KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED', JAYANAGARA, 4tH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560011 FOR RS.5,60,000/- DRAWN IN FAVOUR OF THE COMPLAINANT AND ORDER FOR IMPRISONMENT OF THE ACCUSED-ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 ON N.I ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.20218/2016, dated 16.12.2017.
The complainant and the accused are known to each other and on the said acquaintance, the accused had approached the complainant for lending him a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and on 14.03.2016, the complainant lent him a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in cash. The accused assured for repayment of the same within two months and on 10.06.2016, he repaid a sum of Rs.40,000/- and agreed to repay the balance of Rs.5,60,000/- within one month i.e., on 02.07.2016. When the complainant approached the accused for repayment of the balance amount, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.869163 for a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- dated 11.07.2016 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Jayanagara 4th Block Branch, Bengaluru-560
recorded and the same was read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty.
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act by exercising the powers under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.
appellant/complainant. Learned counsel for
respondent/accused did not appear before this Court, so as to advance his arguments. Perused the records.
in favour of the complainant. Hence, he would seek for setting aside the judgment of acquittal and convicting the accused/respondent herein.
records, now the following point would arise for my consideration:
" Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is perverse, arbitrary and erroneous so as to call for any interference by this Court".
that on 14.03.2016, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from complainant and on 10.06.2016 he repaid an amount of Rs.40,000/- and agreed to repay the balance amount of Rs.5,60,000/- within a period of one month. It is the specific assertion that, later on, the accused had issued a cheque under Ex.P1 dated 11.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.5,60,000/-, which is admittedly dishonored.
assertion of the accused that the transaction is not pertaining to the year 2016 as asserted by the complainant and he would contend that the cheque was issued in the year 2008 which is misused by the complainant.
prevented him from producing relevant documents. On the contrary, the complainant asserts that he paid the amount in cash.
were no earlier financial transactions between him and the accused, he did not explain regarding Ex.D3 and for what purpose cheque No.869164 came to be issued.
accused. In that event, he did not explain as to why the cheque bearing No. 869164 was issued in the year 2008.
CRL.A No. 158 of 2018 NC: 2023:KHC:43626
As such, the point under consideration is answered in the negative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal stands dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
URN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT: BHK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is perverse, arbitrary and erroneous so as to call for any interference by this Court
Whether the complainant has rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act by proving the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt in 2016
Whether the defence raised by the accused that the cheque was issued in 2008 is more probable than the prosecution's claim
4 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI. DHARMALINGAIAH
SRI. T. GIRIYAPPA @ GIRISH
RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
