In this criminal appeal against an acquittal under Section 138 NI Act, the High Court held that the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption by proving the cheque related to a school permit purchase, not school furniture. The appeal was dismissed.
The criminal appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the accused.
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 SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1063 OF 2013 (A)
BETWEEN:
DR RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, MANAGING TRUSTEE, DR. VIJAYAKUMARI SCHOOL OF NURSING, NO.215, 3RD MAIN, 10TH CROSS, PADMANABHANAGAR, BANASHANKARI II STAGE BANGALORE - 560 070
Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka
(BY SRI. P. NATARAJAN, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
…APPELLANT
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.G. GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.09.2013 PASSED BY THE XVI A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.13067/2009 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I.ACT.
NC: 2024:KHC:36072 CRL.A No. 1063 of 2013
THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The complainant in CC No.13067/2009 on the file of the learned XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is impugning the judgment dated 30.09.2013, acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act').
referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
books. After negotiation, accused No.2 agreed to purchase all the items for Rs.5,00,000/- and accordingly, took away all the movables on 23.10.2008. Towards payment of the consideration amount, the accused had issued the cheque bearing No.876848 dated 10.02.2009 for Rs.5,00,000/-. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonored as funds insufficient in the account of the accused. The complainant issued the legal notice notifying the accused about dishonor of the cheque and calling upon him to repay the cheque amount. But the accused after coming to know about return of cheque, in order to escape his liability, issued a notice dated 27.02.2009 taking the false and frivolous defence. The legal notice that was issued by the complainant was served on the accused. The accused has given an untenable reply through her counsel. Thus, she has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Accordingly, the complainant requested the Trial court to take cognizance of the offence and to initiate legal action.
the complainant examined himself as PW-1, examined PW-2 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-17 in support of his contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record and examined herself as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D-1 in support of her defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the complainant is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment came to be passed by acquitting the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant is before this Court.
counsel for the respondents, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' and pass the following:
REASONS
NC: 2024:KHC:36072 CRL.A No. 1063 of 2013
complainant has not disclosed the true facts of the case that the Nursing School is run by Trust and he is representing the Trust.
delivered those items to the accused nor there is any receipt or delivery note to evidence the fact. When a cash voucher was issued as per Ex.D-1, the contention of the complainant that there was no document for having delivered the materials to the accused, cannot be accepted. Ex.M-1 is the Deccan Herrald paper publication admittedly issued by the complainant proposing to sell Dr. Vijayakumari School of Nursing, Hostel, Furniture, Fixtures, Racks, Desks, Lab items, Computers etc., But there is no explanation as to why in Ex.D-1 there is reference only to the permit of the School, but there is no reference to any other Furniture, Fixture etc.,
NC: 2024:KHC:36072 CRL.A No. 1063 of 2013
existence of legally recoverable debt. Under such circumstances, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE
SPV
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 27
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and calls for interference by this Court?
Whether the accused rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act regarding the existence of a legally recoverable debt.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
DR RAJANNA
SSM COLLEGE OF NURSING, REP BY SMT. MANORAMA NALLAIH
SMT. MANORAMA NALLAIHM MAJOR
M G UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
