Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.K. Sudhindrarao, J.
K.A. Ananda - Appellant
Versus
N. Gangadhara - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1191 of 2011
Decided On : 03-11-2020
Negotiable Instruments Act - Cheque Bounce - Section 138 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly Section 138, which deals with the offence of dishonor of cheque for insufficiency of funds. The court emphasized the requirements for a valid cheque, the concept of holder in due course, and the legal principles related to consideration and burden of proof in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant lent Rs.2,00,000 to the accused, who issued a cheque for the same. The cheque was dishonored, and the complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Finding of the Court:
The trial judge's approach was criticized for deviating from the scope of the case and the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the complainant had fulfilled the burden of proof and was a holder in due course. The trial judge's reasoning was found to be inadequate and the judgment was set aside.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the cheque, the complainant's status as a holder in due course, and the burden of proof regarding the issuance and dishonor of the cheque.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal requirements for a valid cheque, the concept of holder in due course, and the burden of proof in establishing the issuance and dishonor of the cheque. The trial judge's failure to provide adequate reasoning and consideration of relevant legal principles led to the setting aside of the judgment.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of acquittal was set aside, and the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,60,000, with Rs.2,50,000 to be paid to the complainant as compensation and the balance to be adjusted to the State Exchequer. In default of payment, the accused was to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
JUDGMENT
N.K.Sudhindrarao, J. - The appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 21.05.2011 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Mulbagal, in C.C.No.28/2010 wherein the accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Being aggrieved by the said order the complainant has come in appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping the parties are addressed in accordance with their ranks and status as stood before the trial court.
3. Learned counsel for appellant Sri.H.Ramachandra is present and learned counsel for respondent absent. Matter is listed for final hearing. Perused the documents and material available on record. Heard Sri.H.Ramachandra, learned counsel for appellant.
4. A criminal case was filed before the trial court by the complainant K.A.Ananda, S/o Krishnappa, agriculturist against N.Gangadhara, S/o Naraynappa, teacher by profession.
5. The substance of the complaint is that complainant and accused were well acquainted with each other for the past 10 years. Accused approached the complainant and requested for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for family necessities and difficulties. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused during first week of February, 2009. The accused even agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2% per month within two months from the date of borrowal. After lapse of two months when complainant demanded payment of debt accused issued a cheque bearing No.356307 for Rs.2,00,000/- dated 04.04.2009 drawn on Canara Bank, Mulbagal branch in favour of complainant.
6. The complainant presented the cheque on the same day for payment and collection through his banker Pragathi Gramina Bank, Avani Branch, Mulbagal. The said cheque went for clearing to Canara Bank, Mulbagal and it returned dishonoured with endorsement Funds Insufficient in the account of the accused . The complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused through RPAD and Certificate of Posting. Notice was served on the accused on 15.06.2009 and the payment was not made. Hence, criminal complaint was filed by the complainant on 07.07.2009.
7. Learned trial Judge was accommodated with the oral evidence of PW-1-Krishnappa, PW-2 Sathyamurthy, PW-3- S.C.Venkatesha on behalf of the complainant and documentary evidence on behalf of complainant are as under:
Ex.P-1 Original cheque
Ex.P-1(a & b) Signatures of accused
Ex.P-2- Bank Endorsement
Ex.P-3-Office copy of legal notice
Ex.P-4 & 5 Two postal receipts
Ex.P-6- COP receipt
Ex.P-7 & 8 Postal acknowledgement
8. Accused examined himself as DW-1 and documents marked on his behalf are:
Ex.D-1- Copy of reply notice
Ex.D-2- Postal receipt
Ex.D-3- Postal acknowledgement
9. Learned counsel for complainant-appellant Sri.H.Ramachandra submits that the learned trial Judge has totally deviated from the scope and domain of the case and the provisions of law governing the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Judgment suggests that the learned trial Judge has gone ahead with the case with presumption in favour of accused which is not permitted. The complainant was a holder in due course and cheque was issued for consideration. The complainant had discharged all burden caste on him.
10. Learned trial Judge noted the identification of cheque and also the endorsement by the complainant through the evidence of PW-1-complainant, PW-2- Sathyamurthy, Manager of Canara Bank, Mulbagal and PW-3 S.C.Venkatesh, Manager of Pragathi Gramina Bank, Avani. Thus, PW-2 and PW-3 have deposed regarding transaction and maintenance of account of the accused in the bank. Ex.D-1 reply notice sent to the complainant by the accused no date is mentioned and also the advocate has not put the date after his signature. This observation is by the learned trial Judge as well. Trial Judge focused on the cross examination of PW-1 to the extent that complainant was working in a stone quarry and not an income
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
