Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 4832
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH, J
L.n. Nagaraju S/o Nanjappa – Appellant
Versus
K. Prema W/o Manjunath – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1114/2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. H.A.RAMALINGE GOWDA, ADVOCATE
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the accused successfully demonstrated that the cheque was altered and that the loan was taken from a third party.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 139 - Dishonour of cheque - The accused borrowed Rs.1,20,000/- from the complainant, issuing a cheque for the same, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The Trial Court convicted the accused, but the appellate court upheld the conviction. The accused contended that the cheque was altered and that he only borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the complainant's brother. The courts failed to adequately consider the evidence regarding the cheque's alteration and the relationship between the parties. (Paras 4, 5, 12, 15)
(B) Presumption under Section 139 - The presumption of a cheque being issued for a legally enforceable debt is rebuttable. The accused successfully rebutted this presumption by demonstrating that the cheque was manipulated and that the loan was taken from the complainant's brother, not from her. (Paras 12, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The complainant lent Rs.1,20,000/- to the accused, who issued a cheque that was later dishonoured. The accused claimed the cheque was altered and that he only borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the complainant's brother.
Findings of Court:
The courts did not properly assess the evidence regarding the cheque's alteration and the nature of the loan transaction.
Issues: Whether the courts erred in their appreciation of evidence and whether the accused's defence was credible.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts failed to consider the evidence of cheque alteration and the relationship between the complainant and the accused, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Result: Revision petition allowed; the accused acquitted.
CAV ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.01.2015 passed in C.C.No.11968/2008 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act by the Trial Court and the judgment dated 18.08.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.214/2015 by the First Appellate Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though respondent served, unrepresented.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court that the accused being known to the complainant, approached her on 12.11.2007 and obtained a hand loan of Rs.1,20,000/- from her to meet his financial necessities agreeing to repay the said amount within a month and to discharge his liability, accused issued a subject matter of Cheque dated 11.01.2008 for the said amount. On presentation of the said Cheque, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and hence, legal notice was issued calling upon the accused to repay the loan amount and the same was served, but, reply was not given and hence, the complaint was lodged and cognizance was taken and accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty and claims trial. Hence, the complainant examined herself as PW1 and also examined one more witness as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the accused was subjected to 313 statement and also led defence evidence by examining himself as DW1 and also examined one more witness as DW2.
4. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that it is not in dispute that Cheque at Ex.P1 belongs to the accused and signature found in the said Cheque is also belongs to accused. But it is the contention of the complainant that she made the payment of Rs.1,20,000/- and accused set up a defence that he had received an amount of Rs.20,000/- from Mahadevappa who is none other than the brother of the complainant and also deposed that he himself and said Mahadevappa were working in the PWD and he does not know the complainant and he further deposed that he had repaid the amount of Rs.10,000/- to Mahadevappa and he had to pay balance of Rs.10,000/- and regarding payment of balance amount is concerned, a galata was took place between him and the said Mahadevappa. Hence, he had executed Ex.P10 for an amount of Rs.10,000/- and in the said document, the said amount of Rs.10,000/- was made as Rs.1,00,000/- and Cheque which was issued for Rs.20,000/- also manipulated as Rs.1,20,000/-. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record accepted the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and did not accept the defence of the accused and presumed that the Cheque is issued for legally enforceable debt and also comes to the conclusion that legal notice issued presumed to be served on the accused and convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.214/2015.
5. In Crl.A.No.214/2015 also similar grounds were urged by the accused and the First Appellate Court taken note of the fact that Ex.P1 goes to show that whenever a person fills up the amount in figures in the cheque, he starts from nearest point of rupees and not by leaving any space. On perusal of Ex.P1 goes to show that there are no signs of material alteration, though the signature of accused is in black ink and other contents are in blue ink. Accused has categorically contended that he has issued the cheque to Mahadevappa by writing Rs.20,000/- in figures only. But the same is manipulated.
Except the signature of the accused, all other contents of the Cheque are in blue ink. If the accused has written the amount of Rs.20,000/- in figures in the Cheque, at the time of issuing to Mahadevappa, then, the said portion should be in black ink. But it is not so and hence, not accepted the defence of
