Dismissed¶52

Shri. Sathish Hegde v. Dr. B. S. Rathnakar

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2025CRL.A/1582/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 138 NI Act acquittal appeal; Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.; Section 139 presumption rebuttal; burden shifts to complainant; blank signed cheques as security; pre-2000 cheque leaf “19—“; sale agreement Ex.D.1; DW2 Bank Manager; CRL.A No. 1582 of 2018; NC: 2025:KHC:2071; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Thirthahalli; C.C. No. 264/2016; Justice Shivashankar Amaranannavar; decided 20-01-2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal is dismissed and the acquittal of the respondent–accused under Section 138 N.I. Act stands. ¶52

Shri. Sathish Hegde Vs Dr. B. S. Rathnakar — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal is dismissed and the acquittal of the respondent–accused under Section 138 N.I. Act stands.

¶52

Issue for consideration

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

¶43

Court's answer

The point for consideration — whether the trial Court erred in acquitting the respondent–accused for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act — is answered in the negative.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

As the respondent–accused admitted his signature on Ex.P.1 cheque, a rebuttable presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act arose that the cheque was issued towards making repayment of the amount borrowed.

¶45

Key takeaways

The numerical “19—“ printed in the date column of Ex.P.1 indicates the cheque book was issued by the Bank prior to the year 2000; this was stated by Bank Manager D.W.2 and admitted by P.W.1 in cross-examination, and fortifies the defence that Ex.P.1 was issued in 1998 as security for the amount borrowed.ratio¶47
Even though the sale agreement Ex.D.1 is dated 25.07.1998, the complainant took no action on it from the alleged date of borrowing until the alleged date of repayment through Ex.P.1 on 13.09.2010, indicating the transaction between the parties was completed long back and no amount remained due.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. by the complainant against a judgment of acquittal dated 26.02.2018 in C.C. No. 264/2016 (Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Thirthahalli) for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Cheque Ex.P.1 dated 13.09.2010 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Thirthahalli was dishonoured with shara “funds insufficient”; the accused admitted his signature, raising a rebuttable presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act. The defence was that Rs.1,10,000/- borrowed in 1998 stood repaid, six signed blank cheques had been left as security, and a sale agreement Ex.D.1 (25.07.1998) was executed as security. The “19—“ print on the cheque leaf — spoken to by Bank Manager D.W.2 and admitted by P.W.1 — showed a pre-2000 cheque book, and the complainant's total inaction on Ex.D.1 until the alleged repayment date of 13.09.2010 indicated the transaction was completed and nothing due. The presumption under Section 139 was held rebutted; the onus shifted to the complainant, who failed to establish the alleged 2010 loan of Rs.2.00 lakhs. Acquittal upheld; appeal dismissed (Justice Shivashankar Amaranannavar, 20.01.2025).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:2071 CRL.A No. 1582 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1582 OF 2018

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. SATHISH HEGDE S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OWNER OF NIMMANE ARECA MANDI, APMC YARD THIRTHAHALLI POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK - 577 432.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI PRADEEP H S, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

DR. B. S. RATHNAKAR S/O. LATE SHIVAPPA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O. NEAR MAIN BUS STAND THIRTHAHALLI POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK - 577 432.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI RAKSHITH JOIS Y P, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 26.02.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., THIRTHAHALLI IN C.C.No.264/2016 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT AND ETC.,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:2071 CRL.A No. 1582 of 2018

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the appellant – complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 26.02.2018 passed in C.C. No. 264/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Thirthahalli, whereunder, the respondent – accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I.Act’) .

¶23

Case of the appellant – complainant is that the respondent – accused and the appellant – complainant were friends and they were known to each other. The respondent – accused had borrowed hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 13.07.2010 and for making repayment of the said loan amount, he had issued a cheque bearing No.1129464 dated 13.09.2010 for

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2071 CRL.A No. 1582 of 2018

¶25

Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Thirthahalli to the appellant – complainant. The appellant – complainant presented the said cheque for encashment and it came to be dishonoured with shara “funds insufficient” on 15.09.2010. The appellant – complainant got issued legal notice and it came to be served on the respondent – accused. The respondent – accused did not pay the cheque amount and therefore, the appellant – complainant filed a private complaint against him for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered C.C. No. 264/2016 against the respondent – accused for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The plea of the respondent – accused came to be recorded. The appellant – complainant, in order to prove his case, has examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. The statement of the respondent – accused came to recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The respondent – accused has examined himself as DW1 and also examined one witness as DW2. One document came to be marked in the

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:2071 CRL.A No. 1582 of 2018

¶28

cross examination of PW1 as Ex.D1. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments on both sides has passed the impugned judgment of acquittal. The said judgment of acquittal has been challenged in this appeal.

¶29

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

¶30

Learned counsel for appellant would contend that the respondent - accused has admitted his signature on Ex.P.1 – cheque and therefore, a presumption arises under Section 139 of N.I. Act that a cheque has been issued for making payment of legally enforceable debt. He further contends that the respondent - accused has not rebutted the said presumption. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent - accused has not taken any action for taking back his 6 signed cheques and he has not produced any document to show that he had given 6 signed cheques to the complainant as security. Cheque – Ex.P.1 may be of the year 19--, but, respondent - accused has issued the same on 13.09.2010 for making payment

¶31

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2071 CRL.A No. 1582 of 2018

¶32

of the amount borrowed and the same is dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. Without considering this aspect learned Magistrate has erred in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal and therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal and convicting the respondent - accused for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶33

Learned counsel for respondent would contend that the respondent - accused has admitted that he had borrowed Rs.1,10,000/- from the appellant – complainant during the year 1998 and he had handed over 6 signed blank cheques to the complainant as security and subsequently, he executed a sale agreement on 25.07.1998 as security for the amount borrowed. He submits that the amount borrowed has been repaid and the complainant has not returned the signed cheques. The year printed in the cheque – Ex.P.1 “19—“ itself indicates that the cheque has been issued prior the year 2000. Said aspect fortifies the defence of the respondent - accused. Evidence of the D.W.2 - Bank Manager also supports the

¶34

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2071 CRL.A No. 1582 of 2018

¶35

contention of the respondent - accused that cheque book had been issued to the respondent - accused in the year 1998 and Ex.P.1 cheque is 15 years old. He further submits that P.W.1 in his cross-examination has admitted the sale agreement and he not taking any action against

¶36

the respondent - accused based on the said sale agreement. He also admitted that he has not issued any legal notice to the respondent - accused seeking specific performance of the said sale agreement and that itself indicates that the said sale agreement is cancelled and amount borrowed by the respondent - accused has been repaid to the complainant. Considering all these aspects learned Magistrate has rightly passed the impugned judgment of acquittal. With this he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶38

parties, this Court has perused the impugned judgment and the trial Court records.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:2071 CRL.A No. 1582 of 2018

¶41

7. Considering the grounds urged the following

¶42

point arises for consideration in this appeal.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

Ex.P.1 – cheque is dated 13.09.2010 drawn on Vijaya Bank for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Respondent - accused has admitted his signature on Ex.P.1 – cheque. In view of said admission a presumption requires to be drawn under Section 139 of the N.I. Act that the said cheque has been issued towards making repayment of the amount borrowed. Said presumption is a rebutable presumption. It is the defence of the respondent - accused that he has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- during June – July, 1998 and at that time he had handed over 6 signed cheques to the complainant and he has repaid the said amount and

¶46

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2071 CRL.A No. 1582 of 2018

¶47

the complainant has not returned the said cheques and he has used one of the said 6 cheques. It is his further defence that as security he had executed sale agreement – Ex.D.1 and that itself indicates that the transaction between the complainant and respondent - accused is completed and no amount is due by the respondent - accused to the complainant. On perusal of Ex.P.1 – cheque it is seen that in the date column the numerical “19—“ is printed and that itself indicate that the said cheque book has been issued by the Bank prior to the year 2000. Said aspect has been stated by the Bank Manager – D.W.2 in his chief examination. Even P.W.1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the print year in Ex.P.1 – cheque is “19—“, said aspect itself fortifies the defence of the respondent - accused that Ex.P.1 – cheque has been issued in the year 1998 as security to the amount borrowed by the respondent - accused from the complainant. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has admitted the sale agreement as per Ex.D.1 between the complainant and accused and the complainant not taking

¶48

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2071 CRL.A No. 1582 of 2018

¶49

any action based on the said sale agreement. Even though the said sale agreement is dated 25.07.1998, from the alleged date of borrowing or till the alleged date of repayment through Ex.P.1 – cheque, i.e., 13.09.2010, the appellant – complainant has not taken any action against the respondent - accused based on the said sale agreement. Said aspect itself indicates that the transaction between the complainant and the accused has been completed long back, prior to 13.09.2010 and no amount is due by the respondent - accused to the complainant. Considering all these aspects it is clear that the respondent - accused has rebutted the presumption raised under Section 139 of N.I. Act. As presumption is rebutted by the respondent - accused, the onus has been shifted on the appellant - complainant to establish that he had lent amount to the respondent - accused. The appellant - complainant has not established that he had lent Rs.2.00 lakhs to the respondent - accused on 13.07.2010 and issuance of cheuqe – Ex.P.1 for making payment of the said amount. Considering all these aspects learned

¶50

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2071 CRL.A No. 1582 of 2018

¶51

Magistrate has rightly acquitted the respondent - accused for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by a reasoned judgment. There are no grounds for setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal.

¶52

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶53

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶54

GH, LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Shri. Sathish Hegde v. Dr. B. S. Rathnakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sathish Hegde v. Dr. B. S. Rathnakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Bharathy R Vs M Mahadevaswamy

Sri Shankar Shetty Vs Smt Srilatha Shetty

M/S Ibex Gallagher Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrs Reshma George

Sri M N Venkatesh Vs Sri K Ravindra

Sri.a.R.Hariprasad Vs Sri.G.Gangadar

M/S Sree Gokulam Chits Vs N Jayalakshmi