A criminal appeal filed with a 661-day delay to challenge an acquittal of the respondent under Section 138 NI Act. The High Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal.
Application for condonation of delay rejected; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:17144 CRL.A No. 188 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2020 (A)
BETWEEN:
SAGAR TALUK AGRICULTURAL, PRODUCE MARKETING, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, LTD., MARKET ROAD, SAGAR CITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MARKET RAOD, SAGAR CITY, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN-577401.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M KRISHNAMURTHY S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS PROPRIETOR - NAVEEN TRADERS, ARECA TRADER, AZAD ROAD, 2ND CROSS, SHIVAPPANAYAKA NAGARA, SAGAR CITY, SHIGAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN-577401.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
NC: 2026:KHC:17144 CRL.A No. 188 of 2020
HC-KAR
SAGAR, IN C.C.NO.342/2006 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the complainant/Co-operative
Society against the order dated 15.11.2017 passed in C.C No.342/2006 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Sagar in which the accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, primarily on the ground that the complaint was presented and prosecuted by a person who was not authorized by a resolution.
NC: 2026:KHC:17144 CRL.A No. 188 of 2020
HC-KAR
affidavit is only reiteration of the complaint averments.
Para No.3 of the affidavit reads as under:-
"The Court below have not considered the oral and documentary evidence on record in a properly. The court below committed an error to consider all the aspects before the coming to the conclusion. There are good grounds on merits. And all chance of success in this case. My Advocate at Sagar has informed us about the dismissal of the complaint and instructed us to file an appeal before the High Court. I submit that we could not file an appeal before this Hon'ble Court for the reason that, the government has passed an order by quashing the earlier audit report and further directed to conduct audit afresh. The entire our officials were busy with the said audit proceedings and it was unable to take permission from the board to file the appeal and to contact our Advocate at Bangalore. The non filing of appeal is bonafide one and not intentional. We have a good case on merits. If this application is allowed no injustice will cause to other side on the other hand if the application is not allowed great injustice will cause to me".
made out for condonation of delay. Hence, application is rejected. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.
SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE
VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SAGAR TALUK AGRICULTURAL, PRODUCE MARKETING, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, LTD.
M KRISHNAMURTHY
M.G.S. KAMAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
