Appeal by complainant against acquittal of the accused in a cheque dishonour case. Court held the accused rebutted presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act; cheque was dishonoured for signature difference, not insufficient funds, and legally enforceable debt was unproved. Appeal dismissed, acquittal affirmed.
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 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 391 OF 2023 (A)
BETWEEN:
SRI.MAHESHWARA B.G. S/O BASAVARAJAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, GAJANANA ENTERPRISES, RAGAVENDRA EXTENSION, K.H.B. COLONY, SORABA TOWN – 577 429, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VASANTHAKUMAR K M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI.NINGAPPA, S/O SHESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O GENDLA VILLAGE, KUPPAGUDDE HOBLI, SORABA TALUK - 577 429, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. PARAMESWARAIAH D. C..,ADVOCATE)
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 12.12.2022 MADE IN C.C.NO.362/2019 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SORABA AND ETC.,
THIS CRL.A COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant being the complainant in
C.C.No.362/2019 on the file of the learned Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba, is impugning the judgment dated 12.12.2022 acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short, ' the N.I. Act' ].
be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
for the appellant and Sri. Parameswariah.D.C. learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court Records.
that the appellant being the complainant is the proprietor of a shop dealing with electrical goods, equipments, pipes, etc. The accused had purchased submersible pump, pipes
& other accessories for the borewell worth amounting to Rs.4,72,000/- on 05.06.2017. He had not repaid the said amount, but on the other hand, issued the cheque as per Ex.P-1 on 12.03.2018. When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured as "drawer signature differs". But, in fact the signature found on Ex.P-1 is that of the accused and hence the bank could not have dishonoured the cheque.
complainant himself was examined as PW-1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P-1 to P-8 in support of her contention. The accused had gone to the extent of denying the existence of proprietary concern referred to by the complainant produced at Ex.P-6 i.e., the Trade licence in the name of complainant and Ex.P-7 the bank pass book. The said exhibits are produced by the complainant to prove the existence of the proprietory concern. When admittedly the cheque issued by accused was dishonoured, the presumption under Section 139 of
the N.I. Act will arise. The accused has not rebutted the said presumption and therefore, he is liable for conviction. Learned counsel submitted that the trial court proceeded to acquit the accused holding that the cheque was not dishonoured due to insufficient funds and moreover the complainant has not proved the existence of legally recoverable debt. The reason assigned by the trial court are not justifiable and hence prays for allowing the appeal in the interest of justice.
reasons to interfere with the same and accordingly, prays
for dismissal of the appeal.
learned counsel for the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity or illegality, which calls for interference by this court?”
for the following:
R E A S O N S
complainant. During cross-examination of PW-1, he was cross examined regarding the documents to prove the existence of legally recoverable debt, but inspite of that the complainant did not thought it fit to produce any of the documents to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt.
prove his contention. No material is placed to substantiate
his contention and when the cheque in question was dishonoured as the signature differs, it cannot be said that the accused has committed the offence punishable u/s.138 of N.I. Act.
passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into consideration all the oral and documentary evidence placed before it and has arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgment passed by the Trial Court. There are no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE
Snb/ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal under Section 138 NI Act suffered from perversity or illegality warranting interference?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Maheshwara B.G.
Sri. Ningappa
M G Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
