Dismissed¶50

Sri C Ramachandra v. Sri T Malleshappa

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2025CRL.A/197/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act; Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.; criminal appeal against acquittal; material alteration of cheque date; want of proprietor seal; funds insufficient endorsement; employee lending to employer doubt; theft of cheque book; PCR No.5/2009; IPC Sections 408, 409, 420, 465, 474, 379; Exs.D.2 and D.3 employment documents; Lakshmi Venkateshwara Wines; Davanagere; Hiriyur; CRL.A No. 197 of 2014; Karnataka High Court; Justice H.P. Sandesh; acquittal upheld; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No error was committed by the Trial Court in appreciating and considering the plausible defence of the accused; a reasoned order was passed and the acquittal does not require interference of this Court. ¶45

Sri C Ramachandra Vs Sri T Malleshappa — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9268 CRL.A No. 197 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.197 OF 2014

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. C. RAMACHANDRA, S/O CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT KALKERE CAMP, KALKUNTE POST, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 001.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. T. MALLESHAPPA, S/O THIMMAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, PROPRIETOR, SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA WINES, WATER TANK ROAD, HIRIYUR-572 143.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.9.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., DAVANAGERE IN C.C.NO.236/2012 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:9268 CRL.A No. 197 of 2014

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

¶24

learned counsel for the respondent.

¶25

This appeal is filed against the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘NI Act’ for short).

¶26

The factual matrix of the case of the complainant is that the accused had approached the complainant since both of them are well known to each other. The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1 lakh on 02.09.2008 from the complainant and promised to repay the said amount within three months and he did not repay and hence issued the post dated cheque dated 10.12.2008 and when the said cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, the notice was issued and served and the accused did not comply with the demand and hence complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and the accused was secured and he did

¶27

not plead guilty. The complainant in order to prove his case

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9268 CRL.A No. 197 of 2014

¶29

examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 7. On the other hand, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 9. The Trial Court considered both the evidence of the complainant and accused and the documentary evidence, particularly taken note of the answers elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 during the course of cross-examination. P.W.1 admitted that both of them are working in arrack Company and denied the suggestion that

¶30

the accused is the owner of Lakshmi Venkateshwara Wine shop, where he was working as vendor. However in his further crossexamination when the document of Ex.D.2 was confronted to him, he admits that he was an employee under the accused and hence the Trial Court taken note of the documents of Ex.D.2 and Ex.D.3, which clearly shows that the complainant was an employee under the accused. The Trial Court also observed that if that is taken into consideration, it creates doubt in the mind of the Court for having lent the money by the employee in favour of the employer. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the accused bank statement i.e., Lakshmi Venkateshwara Wines, shows that the accused was transacting in lakhs. When such being the position, it cannot be believed that the accused has borrowed loan of Rs.1 lakh from his employee.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:9268 CRL.A No. 197 of 2014

¶33

It is the case of the accused that the complainant

¶34

has committed the theft of cheque and the same was misused. In this regard, the accused had lodged the complaint and police did not accept the same and hence PCR No.5/2009 was filed and cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 420, 465, 474 and 379 of IPC. The Trial Court taken note of Exs.D.1 and 4, copy of the notice sent to the accused, wherein with regard to mentioning the date is concerned, there is a correction and hence comes to the conclusion that there is material alteration. Apart from that, the complainant has deposed that he has lent the money out of the agricultural income of his parents and with regard to that he was having Rs.1 lakh, nothing is placed on record and hence doubted

¶35

the capacity of the complainant in lending the money of Rs.1 laksh in favour of the accused. The Trial Court also taken note of that the cheque was not only returned for insufficient funds, but also for want of proprietor seal. Having perused the document of Ex.P.1, it does not disclose or depict the sale of the said ownership of the accused. Having considered all these materials into consideration, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the case of the complainant cannot be accepted.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:9268 CRL.A No. 197 of 2014

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant

¶39

and the learned counsel for the respondent and also considering the material on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:

¶40

(i) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused and whether it requires interference of this Court?

¶41

(ii) What order?

¶42

Point No.(i):

¶43

The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there is no material alteration and brought to the notice of this Court document Ex.P.2 cheque and having considered the same regarding date is concerned, the number which was put appears to be in different ink and it does not bear the seal of the accused. Apart from that, the documents Exs.D.2 and 3, which have been placed before the Court clearly discloses the employment of the complainant with the accused and the same is taken note of by the Trial Court. The complaint was given by the accused in terms of Ex.D.5 with regard to the theft of the cheque book and also publication was given and copy of the complaint filed is marked in terms of Ex.D.7. Having considered these documents, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9268 CRL.A No. 197 of 2014

¶45

the very case of the complainant is doubtful. Having considered the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the complaint cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in appreciating and considering the plausible defence of the accused and a reasoned order has been passed by the Trial Court and hence it does not require interference of this Court.

¶46

Point No.(ii):

¶47