Dismissed¶56

Girijavva @ Girija W/O Somashekharappa Byadgi v. Satyanarayana S/O Annappa Jadhav

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2025CRL.A/100088/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 NI Act acquittal affirmed; Section 139 presumption rebutted by preponderance of probability; cheque issued as security for land-sale transaction with accused's brother Srinath; complainant's cross-examination admission; Ex.D2/D3 bank statements showing credit balance; no material proving loan; CRL.A No.100088 of 2017; High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench; Justice Shivashankar Amaranannavar; decided 16.04.2025; appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against Ranebennur JMFC acquittal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Since the respondent-accused admitted his signature on cheque Ex.P1, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act had to be drawn that the cheque was issued for discharge of debt. ¶45

Girijavva @ Girija W/O Somashekharappa Byadgi Vs… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court erred in acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act?

¶41

Court's answer

Since the respondent-accused admitted his signature on cheque Ex.P1, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act had to be drawn that the cheque was issued for discharge of debt.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The Section 139 presumption is a rebuttable presumption, and the standard of proof for rebutting it is preponderance of probability.

¶45

Key takeaways

P.W.1-complainant's voluntary statement in cross-examination that one cheque was given to her established the accused's defence that the cheque was issued as security for the sale transaction between the complainant and the accused's brother Srinath; on that aspect the respondent-accused rebutted the presumption drawn under Section 139 of the N.I Act.ratio¶49
The complainant placed no material on record to establish the borrowing of money; Ex.D2 and D3, statements of the accused's bank account, indicated he had credit balance and was not in need of money as on the date of the alleged borrowing, i.e. 16.11.2013.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC by the complainant against the acquittal (dated 19.10.2016, C.C.No.215/2016, Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur) of the accused in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case concerning a cheque of Rs.2,50,000/-. Held: admission of the accused's signature on cheque Ex.P1 raised the Section 139 presumption that the cheque was issued for discharge of debt, but that presumption is rebuttable on preponderance of probability. The complainant's own voluntary admission in cross-examination that one cheque was given to her established the accused's defence that the cheque was security for the sale transaction between her and the accused's brother Srinath; further, bank statements Ex.D2 and D3 showed the accused had credit balance and was not in need of money on the alleged borrowing date (16.11.2013), and the complainant placed no material to prove the loan. The acquittal was well reasoned; no grounds existed to interfere. Appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6500 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100088 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. GIRIJAVVA @ GIRIJA W/O. SOMASHEKHARAPPA BYADGI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEWIFE, R/O: JOYISARAHALAHALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. M. B. GUNDAWADE & SRI. A. M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SATYANARAYANA S/O. ANNAPPA JADHAV, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 3^RD CROSS, ASHOKNAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶12

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (4) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 19.10.2016, PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 215 OF 2016 BY ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ADN JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR AND TO PASS A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT AND ALSO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE COMPLAINANT INCLUDING THE CHEQUE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,50,000/- IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ANY OTHER ORDERS MAY KINDLY BE PASSED THAT THE HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6500 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2017

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is filed by the appellant -complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 19.10.2016 passed in C.C.No.215/2016 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur, whereunder the respondent -accused has been acquitted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’, for short)

¶20

The case of the appellant –complainant in brief is as under:

¶21

The appellant –complainant is permanent resident of Joyisarahalli village in Ranebennur taluk and she owned the agricultural land bearing Sy No 110/4 measuring 1 acre at Ranebennur. She had put the said land for sale during November 2013. One Srinath -the brother of the

¶22

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6500 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2017

¶23

accused purchased the said land from the complainant on 13.11.2013 under the registered sale deed dated 14.11.2013. In the said matter of sale transaction accused took active part. The appellant –complainant came to be acquainted with the accused and reposed confidence on him. The appellant –complainant has sale amount with her. The respondent -accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-(rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) from the complainant by way of cash on 16.11.2013 promising and assuring to return the said amount to the complainant within a month. The complainant waited for a month but accused has not repaid the amount to the complainant. When the complainant insisted for the return of the amount, the respondent -accused has issued cheque bearing No.815346 drawn on Corporation Bank, Ranebennur for Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) on his account No. 024222. The complainant presented the said cheque on 26.02.2014 but it was returned with endorsement "payment stopped by

¶24

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6500 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2017

¶25

drawer”. The complainant again presented the said cheque on 11.04.2014 and at that time also it was dishonored for

¶26

the same reason that “payment stopped by the drawer”. The complainant issued legal notice dated 25.04.2014 to the accused calling upon him to make the payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The notice was served upon the accused. Inspite of service of notice, the accused has not repaid the cheque amount but has sent reply to notice through his advocate. As accused has not repaid the cheque amount, the appellant –

¶27

complainant has filed a private complaint against the respondent –accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act.

¶28

Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and registered C.C.No.215/2016 against the respondent - accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The plea of the accused has been recorded. The

¶29

appellant -complainant in order to prove her case has examined herself as PW-1 and got marked documents as

¶30

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6500 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2017

¶31

Ex.P-1 to P-9. The statement of accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The respondent – accused has examined himself as D.W.1 and marked documents EX.D1 to D7. The learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments on both sides, has formulated the points for consideration and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondent –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The said judgment of acquittal has been challenged by the appellant -complainant in this appeal.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant –complainant would contend that the respondent –accused has admitted his signature on cheque –Ex.P1 and therefore, the presumption has to be drawn under Section 139 of the N.I Act. The said presumption has not been rebutted by the respondent –accused. The defence of the respondent – accused is that cheque is issued as security to the sale

¶34

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6500 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2017

¶35

transaction between his brother –Srinath and complainant has not been established. Without considering all these aspects, learned Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondent –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. With these, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent –accused would contend that P.W.1 has admitted in her cross examination that she has received one cheque as security for the sale transaction from the respondent –accused. The said aspect itself establishes the defence of the respondent –accused. Ex.D2 and 3 -statements of bank account of respondent –accused indicate that he was not in need of amount as his credit balance in his account is more than amount borrowed. Considering all these aspects, learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted the respondent –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. With these, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶37

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6500 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2017

¶38

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has

¶39

perused the impugned judgment and trial Court records. Considering the grounds urged, the following point arises for my consideration:

¶40

“Whether the trail Court has erred

¶41

in acquitting the respondent -accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act?”

¶42

My answer to the above point is in the ‘negative’ for the following reasons:

¶43

It is the case of the appellant -complainant that she came in acquaintance with respondent -accused at the time of sale transaction between her and Srinath- brother of accused. Due to that acquaintance, she lent amount of Rs.2,50,000/-(rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the accused as he was in need of money. It is further case of the complainant that in order to repay the amount borrowed, the respondent –accused has issued cheque –

¶44

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6500 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2017

¶45

Ex.P1. The respondent –accused has admitted his signature on cheque –Ex.P1. As respondent –accused has admitted his signature on cheque –Ex.P1, the presumption has to be drawn under Section 139 of the N.I Act that the cheque has been issued for discharge of debt. The said presumption is rebuttable presumption. The standard of proof for rebutting the said presumption is preponderance of probability.

¶46

It is defence of the respondent –accused that cheque –Ex.P1 has been issued by him as security to the sale transaction of his brother –Srinath with appellant - complainant. P.W.1 –complainant in her cross examination has denied suggestion that accused has given two cheques with Nagappa Karadennavar and one cheque with her, but at that time she gave voluntary statement that one cheque was given with her. The said admission itself establish the defence of the respondent –accused that at

¶47

the time of sale transaction between the appellant – complainant and Srinath –brother of accused, the cheque

¶48

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6500 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2017

¶49

has been given by the respondent –accused as security to the said sale transaction. Considering the said aspect, the respondent –accused has rebutted the presumption drawn under Section 139 of the N.I Act.

¶50

In order to establish the transaction of

¶51

borrowing money from the appellant –complainant by the respondent –accused, the appellant -complainant has not placed any materials on record. More so Ex.D2 and D3 – statements of bank account of accused indicate that he has credit balance and he was not in need of money as on the date of borrowing i.e.16.11.2013.

¶52

Considering all these aspects, learned

¶53

Magistrate has rightly acquitted the respondent –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act by well reasoned judgment. There are no grounds made out for interfering with the said judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court

¶54

10 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6500 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2017

¶56

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶57

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶58

DSP CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment of acquittal of the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in C.C.No.215/2016.¶19
Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur · 19.10.2016
Prior proceeding
Complainant sold agricultural land Sy.No.110/4 measuring 1 acre at Ranebennur to Srinath, brother of the accused, under registered sale deed dated 14.11.2013 (sale on 13.11.2013); the accused took active part in the transaction.¶23
Prior proceeding
Accused allegedly borrowed Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash from the complainant on 16.11.2013, promising repayment within a month; amount not repaid.¶23
Prior proceeding
In discharge of the alleged loan, the accused issued cheque No.815346 drawn on Corporation Bank, Ranebennur for Rs.2,50,000/- on his account No. 024222.¶23
Prior proceeding
Cheque presented on 26.02.2014 and returned with the endorsement 'payment stopped by drawer'.¶23
Prior proceeding
Cheque again presented on 11.04.2014 and dishonoured for the same reason, 'payment stopped by the drawer'.¶26
Prior proceeding
Complainant issued legal notice dated 25.04.2014 calling on the accused to pay within 15 days; notice served; accused sent reply through advocate but did not pay the cheque amount.¶26
Prior proceeding
Complainant filed a private complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act.¶27
Prior proceeding
Learned Magistrate took cognizance and registered C.C.No.215/2016 against the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act; plea of the accused recorded.¶28
Prior proceeding
Trial: complainant examined herself as PW-1 and marked Ex.P-1 to P-9; accused's statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; accused examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D1 to D7.¶31
Prior proceeding
Learned Magistrate formulated points for consideration and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondent-accused under Section 138 of the N.I Act.¶31

Girijavva @ Girija W/O Somashekharappa Byadgi v. Satyanarayana S/O Annappa Jadhav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girijavva @ Girija W/O Somashekharappa Byadgi v. Satyanarayana S/O Annappa Jadhav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ibrahimsab Alias Ibrahimasab S/O Anwarsab Anwarali Mangaluru Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Mahendra Mishra Vs Sri. K Koteswar Rao

Jai Balaji Enerprises Vs Shri Mohit S/O Kailash Mahajan

Sagar Alias Vidyasagar Ishwarappa Gabannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.R. Maruti Prasad S/O Govindappa, Vs Nagaraj Gupta

Sanjeev Rathod S/O Tharappa Rathod Vs Pampanna S/O Hussainappa Kurubar