Dismissed¶¶42

J Savithramma v. M S Ramachandra

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2025CRL.A/381/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act; cheque dishonour; 'bank under liquidation' endorsement; insufficiency of funds; whether return of cheque due to the bank's liquidation attracts S.138; acquittal upheld; complainant's appeal under S.378(4) CrPC dismissed; Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.A No. 381 of 2013; decided 11-02-2025; Shivashankar Amarannavar J; respondent served but unrepresented; NC: 2025:KHC:5965.

What did the court decide?

The point formulated is answered in the negative: the Appellate Judge did not err in acquitting the respondent-accused. ¶¶34

J Savithramma Vs M S Ramachandra — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5965 CRL.A No. 381 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 381 OF 2013

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

J. SAVITHRAMMA W/O C. MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS GENDE HOSAHALLI VILLAGE ARAKERE HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA MANDYA DISTRICT

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. B.N. GOPALA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by HEMAVATHY GANGABYRAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

M.S. RAMACHANDRA S/O M.P. SRIKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS MANDYA KOPPAL VILLAGE ARAKERE HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT

¶12

…RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.A IS. FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18.02.2013 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C., SRIRANGAPATNA IN CRL.A.NO.92/2012 - CONVICTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I.ACT AND RESTORE THE ORDERS AND JUDGMENT DATED 23.08.2012 PASSED BY THE ADDL. C.J. (JR. DN.) & J.M.F.C., SRIRANGAPATNA IN C.C.NO.552/2006.

¶13

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:5965 CRL.A No. 381 of 2013

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶18

This appeal is filed by the appellant – complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 18.02.2013 passed in Crl.A.No.92/2012 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Srirangapatna, whereunder the judgment of conviction dated 23.08.2012 passed in C.C.No.552/2006 by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C, Srirangapatna has been reversed and the respondent – accused has been acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as “N.I.Act”) .

¶19

The facts in brief of the complainant’s case is as under;

¶20

The appellant – complainant is a house wife and the respondent - accused became indebted in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for which he had issued a cheque for

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5965 CRL.A No. 381 of 2013

¶22

Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Karnataka Contractor’s Sahakara Bank Niyamitha, K.R.Road, Bengaluru Branch situated at Mandya bearing No.195575. The appellant - complainant presented the said cheque for encashment on 30.11.2005. The said cheque returned with an endorsement “bank under liquidation as per the orders of the R.B.I on 12.02.2004” and the said endorsement is dated 06.12.2005. The appellant - complainant got issued a notice on 10.12.2005 calling upon the respondent - accused to pay the cheque amount. The said notice has been served on the respondent - accused on 30.12.2005.

¶23

The respondent - accused did not pay the cheque amount and therefore, the appellant - complainant has filed a private complaint against the respondent - accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and registered a case in C.C.No.552/2006 against the respondent – accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The plea of the respondent – accused has been recorded. The appellant – complainant in order to prove her case, got examined

¶24

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5965 CRL.A No. 381 of 2013

¶25

herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4. The statement of the respondent – accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The respondent – accused examined himself as DW1 and one witness as DW2 and got marked Exs.D1 to D7. The learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments on both sides, convicted the respondent - accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by judgment dated 23.08.2012. The respondent - accused has challenged the said judgment of conviction in Crl.A.No.92/2012 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Srirangapatna. The Appellate Court after hearing the arguments on both sides has formulated the points for consideration and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal reversing the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. The said judgment of the Appellate Court passed in Crl.A.No.92/2012 has been challenged by the appellant - complainant in this appeal.

¶26

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5965 CRL.A No. 381 of 2013

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the appellant –

¶28

complainant. Even after service of notice, the respondent has remained absent and unrepresented.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant – complainant would contend that the Appellate Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly held that the respondent – accused has committed an offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act. Learned counsel for the appellant – complainant further contended that the reason for dishonour ie., “bank under liquidation” also amounts to dishnour of cheque, attracting the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. With this, he prayed for allowing the appeal and convicting the respondent - accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by setting aside the judgment passed by the Appellate Court and by affirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court.

¶30

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5965 CRL.A No. 381 of 2013

¶31

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant

¶32

and having perused the impugned judgment and the Trial Court records, the following point arises for consideration;

¶33

“Whether the learned Appellate Judge has erred in acquitting the respondent - accused of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by reversing the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court ? ”

¶34

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

¶35

As per the case of the appellant - complainant, the cheque – Ex.P1 has been issued by the respondent - accused for making payment of the amount borrowed in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellant - complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment. The said cheque came to be dishonoured and the bank endorsement is at Ex.P3. On perusal of Ex.P3, the cheque issued by the respondent - accused ie., Ex.P1 has been dishnoured for the reason “bank under liquidation as per R.B.I order from 12.02.2004 ”. The cheque is not dishonoured for want of

¶36

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5965 CRL.A No. 381 of 2013

¶37

funds in the account of the respondent - accused. The cheque – Ex.P1 has been dishonoured as the bank in which the respondent – accused is having account on which Ex.P1 – cheque has been issued was under liquidation. The said endorsement that the bank under liquidation does not amount to dishonour of the cheque for want of funds in the account of the respondent - accused. The words used in Section 138 of the N.I.Act for return of the cheque unpaid by the Bank is “either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank.” The said words itself would indicate that the said cheque has to be dishonoured for want of funds in the account of the drawer. In the case on hand, the cheque has been dishonoured as the bank under liquidation. The said endorsement does not amount to dishonour of cheque for want of funds in the account of the respondent - accused. Therefore, the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is not attracted. Even though the judgment of

¶38

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5965 CRL.A No. 381 of 2013

¶39

acquittal passed by the Appellate Court is on the other grounds / reasons, but considering the above aspects, there are no grounds for allowing the appeal and convicting the respondent - accused for the offence under Section 138

¶40

of the N.I.Act. In the result, the following;

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The appeal is dismissed .

¶43

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶44

GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

J Savithramma v. M S Ramachandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J Savithramma v. M S Ramachandra

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

M/S. Rajesh Exports Limited., Vs Smt. S. Manjula

M/S Kuff N Kollar Vs M/S Revuesoft Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.

Sri C Lakshmipathi Vs Sri v Bhaskar

V.K.Jayanthi Vs Hoysala

Sri Gurupadappa Sunkad Vs Smt S Shobha

Sri B Lingaraju Vs Smt Radhika S