2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 17269
CRL.A.NO.877/2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.877 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
SRI V.NAGENDRA,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/O NO.30, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
5TH CROSS, KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL ROAD,
SARASWATHIPURA, MYSORE.
…COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT
(BY SRI SRINIVASA D.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
DR.SUDHA RUDRAPPA, M.B.B.S.,
W/O Y.VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
CHILDREN SPECIALIST,
CHELUVAMBA HOSPITAL,
MYSORE.
...ACCUSED / RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GIRIDHAR H., ADVOCATE)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 14.07.2011 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT
AND
SESSIONS
JUDGE,
MYSORE,
IN
CRL.A.NO.74/2011 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND RESTORE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE V
ADDL.
I
CIVIL
JUDGE
AND
J.M.F.C.,
MYSORE
IN
C.C.NO.2962/2008 DATED 18.04.2011, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
CRL.A.NO.877/2011
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED
ON
06.01.2023,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
This appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, is by the complainant challenging the
acquittal of accused by the Sessions Court, thereby
reversing her conviction and sentence imposed by the trial
Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.
Act.
2.
For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to by their rank before the trial Court.
3.
Complainant filed a private complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of N.I. Act, alleging that he and accused are
known to each other. During her hard days accused
borrowed a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- on 01.02.2008, agreeing
to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a. within a period
of six months. When she failed to repay the amount as
agreed, after several request and demand, she issued a
cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 13.08.2008. When he
3
presented the same for encashment, on 09.09.2008 it was
returned with endorsement "Account closed". He got issued
a legal notice on 24.09.2008 calling upon her to pay the
amount due under the cheque. The notice sent through
RPAD
is
returned with endorsement "Not claimed".
However, the notice sent through COP is served on her. In
fact accused has sent a untenable reply dated 06.10.2008.
Without any alternative, he has filed the complaint.
4.
After
recording
sworn
statement
of
the
complainant, the trial Court took cognizance. After service
of summons, accused has appeared and contested the
complaint, mainly contending that she had lost her vanity
bag containing 385 cheques of 12 Banks and utilizing one
such cheque, complainant has filed a false complaint
against her. She has also taken up a specific defence that
complainant is not at all having financial capacity to lend
Rs.1,20,000/- to her and in fact she had no such financial
need to borrow the said sum from the complainant. She is
not at all knowing the complainant.
5.
During trial complainant has examined himself
as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to 9.
4
6.
During the course of her statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused has denied the incriminating
evidence.
7.
Accused has examined herself as DW-1 and got
marked Ex.D1 to 4.
8.
Vide judgment and order dated 18.04.2011, the
trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced her pay
fine of Rs.1,25,000/- in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months.
9.
Accused
challenged
the
same
in
Crl.A.No.74/2011 before the Sessions Court. Vide judgment
and order dated 14.07.2011, the Sessions Court allowed
the appeal and acquitted the accused.
10.
Aggrieved by the same, complainant is before
this Court contending that the Sessions Court has
committed a serious error in reversing the conviction. The
Sessions Court has not properly appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record. Despite the
presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act, the
Sessions Court has erred in not accepting the case of the
5
complainant and reversing a well reasoned judgment of the
trial Court. The defence taken by the accused that she has
lost her purse containing 385 cheques of 12 Banks is
imaginary and unreal and such a defence is taken up only
for the purpose of this case. This fact is not properly
appreciated by the Sessions Court. In fact the admissions
given by the accused during her cross-examination show
that she and her husband were facing financial crisis and
borrowed money and number of cheque bounce cases were
pending against them. This fact is not properly appreciated
by the Sessions Court and prays to set aside the judgment
and order of the Sessions Court and restore the judgment
and order of the trial Court.
10.1 In support of his arguments, learned counsel for
appellant has relied upon following decisions.
a) Sri R.Rajappa V/s Sri K.Ashok Rai1
b) M/s Kalamani Tex and another V/s
P.Balasubramanian2
c) Sumeti Vij V/s M/s Paramount Tech
Fab Industries3
d) Kumar Exports V/s Sharma Carpets4
1 2021 (4) K.L.J. 524
2 Crl.A.No.123/2021 (SLP (Crl.) No.1876/2018
3