Dismissed

Smt. Vijayalakshmi v. Sri Chandrashekar B

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2025CRL.A/162/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against acquittal in a cheque bounce case. The court found that the appellant failed to examine her husband to disprove the defense that cheques were security for a past, repaid loan. The presumption of debt under Section 139 was rebutted, and the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 2014 dismissed; order of acquittal of the respondent maintained.

Smt. Vijayalakshmi Vs Sri Chandrashekar B — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1938 CRL.A No. 162 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 162 OF 2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O G.CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT No. 282/59, 3^RD CROSS BRAHAMANANDAMUTT ROAD RAMACHRAPURAM OPP. SANGEETHA VIDEO BANGALORE - 560 021.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI PAVAN KUMAR N, ADVOCATE SRI L. SRINIVASA BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR B PROPRIETOR OF MANASACORRESPONDENCE COLLEGE, REG., D/No. 454, 3^RD CROSS, 3^RD MAIN KAMALANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 079. AND ALSO AT:

¶14

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR.B PROPRIETOR OF MANASA CORRESPONDENCE COLLEGE, REG., No.58, 2^ND FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS SAMPIGE ROAD

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:1938 CRL.A No. 162 of 2014

¶17

MALLESHWARAM CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 003.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M C RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE – V.C.)

¶20

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4)Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 21.10.2013 PASSED BY THE XIII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.No.26411/2011 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.ACT AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellant – complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 21.10.2013 passed in C.C.No.26411/2011 by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, 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’).

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1938 CRL.A No. 162 of 2014

¶26

The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that; the appellant – complainant is the Proprietor of Sree Sai Lakshmi Enterprises doing fabrication work for their livelihood. The respondent – accused is the family friend of the appellant – complainant since several years and due to such acquaintance, the respondent – accused approached the appellant – complainant in the last week of December, 2010 for the financial assistance of Rs.4,00,000/-, promising to repay the same within three months. The appellant – complainant had lent Rs.4,00,000/- during the last week of December, 2010 to the respondent – accused. The respondent – accused, in order to repay the said loan amount had issued two post dated cheques, bearing No.086849 dated 07.03.2011 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and bearing No.086850 dated 21.03.2011 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, both drawn at U.T.I Bank Limited, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru. The appellant – complainant presented the said two cheques and they came to be dishonoured with an endorsement –

¶27

“Account Closed”. The appellant – complainant got issued

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:1938 CRL.A No. 162 of 2014

¶30

the legal notice to the respondent – accused on 18.04.2011. On service of the said notice, the respondent – accused had sent the reply. As the cheque amount has not been paid, the appellant – complainant filed a private complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act against the respondent – accused. The learned Magistrate

¶31

took cognizance of the offence and registered C.C.No.26411/2011 against the respondent – accused. The plea of the respondent – accused has been recorded. The appellant – complainant, in order to prove her case, has examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. The statement of the respondent – accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The respondent – accused has been examined as DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D3. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the arguments on both sides, has formulated the points for consideration and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment of acquittal. The said judgment of acquittal has been challenged by the appellant – complainant in the present appeal.

¶32

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1938 CRL.A No. 162 of 2014

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the appellant –

¶34

complainant and learned counsel for the respondent – accused.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant – complainant would contend that the respondent – accused had admitted his signatures on Exs.P1 and P2 – cheques and therefore, a presumption arises under Section 139 of the N.I.Act, that the cheques have been issued for making payment of legally enforceable debt. The respondent – accused had sent a false reply as per Ex.D3. The appellant – complainant has denied the suggestion that Exs.P1 and P2 – cheques were given to her husband as a security at the time of the respondent – accused availing loan of Rs.50,000/- and they have not been returned after repayment of the loan and they have been misused by the appellant – complainant. Without considering all these aspects, the learned Magistrate has erred passing the judgment of acquittal. On these grounds, he prayed for

¶36

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1938 CRL.A No. 162 of 2014

¶37

allowing the appeal and convicting the respondent – accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent – accused would

¶39

contend that the respondent – accused had availed loan of Rs.50,000/- from husband of the appellant – complainant on 24.03.2007 and at that time, he had given the blank signed cheques. The said loan had been repaid by the respondent – accused on 16.04.2008 and the same can be seen from the statement of account which is at Ex.D1. Inspite of repayment of the said loan, husband of the appellant – complainant has not returned the cheques and he got them misused by handing over them to the appellant – complainant who is his wife. The said closing of account of the respondent – accused on 16.07.2008 itself would indicate that the cheques were issued prior to closure of the said account. The respondent – accused has denied the transaction and issue of the cheques to the appellant – complainant in his reply notice – Ex.D3. The appellant – complainant has not chosen to examine her

¶40

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1938 CRL.A No. 162 of 2014

¶41

husband, in order to disprove the contentions of the respondent – accused. Considering all these aspects, the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the judgment of acquittal. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsels, this Court has perused the impugned judgment and the Trial Court records.

¶43

Considering the grounds urged, the following point arises for consideration;

¶44

“Whether the Trial Court has erred in passing the judgment of acquittal, acquitting the respondent – accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act?”

¶45

My answer to the above point is in the nagative, for the following reasons;

¶46

Exs.P1 and 2 – cheques are stated to be issued by the respondent – accused for making payment of the amount borrowed. The respondent – accused had

¶47

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1938 CRL.A No. 162 of 2014

¶48

admitted his signatures on Exs.P1 and 2 – cheques. As the respondent – accused had admitted his signatures on the cheques, a presumption arises under Section 139 of the N.I.Act that the cheques were issued for making payment of the legally recoverable debt. The said presumption is a rebutable presumption. It is the defence of the respondent – accused that he had availed loan of Rs.50,000/- on 24.03.2007 from husband of the appellant – complainant in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and it had been repaid by him on 16.04.2008. Ex.D1 – bank statement contains an entry dated 16.04.2008, whereunder Rs.50,000/- had been paid by this respondent – accused to the husband of the appellant – complainant. It is the contention of the respondent – accused that Exs.P1 and 2 – cheques were issued as a security to the husband of the appellant – complainant at the time of availing the said loan and they had been misused by the appellant – complainant and her husband. Ex.D2 is the document, wherein it is stated that the account of the respondent – accused has been closed on 16.07.2008. The cheques –

¶49

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1938 CRL.A No. 162 of 2014

¶50

Exs.P1 and 2 are dated 07.03.2011 and 21.03.2011. Considering the said date of closure of the account and the dates of the cheques – Exs.P1 and 2, it fortifies the defence of the respondent – accused that the cheques were issued as a security to the husband of the appellant – complainant, when he availed loan on 24.03.2007. In order to disprove the contentions of the respondent – accused that he had given the cheques to the husband of the appellant – complainant, the appellant – complainant ought to have examined her husband. The appellant – complainant has not chosen to examine her husband. The appellant – complainant has not produced any document to show her financial capacity to lend a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Considering all these aspects, the respondent – accused has rebutted the presumption raised under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. Considering all these aspects, the learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted the respondent – accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by a well reasoned judgment. There are no

¶51

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1938 CRL.A No. 162 of 2014

¶52

grounds made out for setting aside the impugned

¶53

judgment of acquittal. In the result, the following;

¶54

ORDER

¶55

The appeal is dismissed .

¶56

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶57

GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Smt. Vijayalakshmi v. Sri Chandrashekar B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vijayalakshmi v. Sri Chandrashekar B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sridhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Manohara M N Vs the State of Karnataka

S C Mohan Vs Hot Man Builders Private Ltd.

Smt. Bharathy R Vs M Mahadevaswamy

Sri Shankar Shetty Vs Smt Srilatha Shetty

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