- 1 -
CRL.A No. 1778 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1778 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. GOUTHAM VENKI,
S/O. LATE MOTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT. SIDDANAPALYA VILLAGE,
INDLAVADI POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106
BANGALORE DISTRICT
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V.SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. GURUMURTHY,
S/O. LATE MARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/A.SIDDANAPALYA VILLAGE,
INDLAVADI POST,
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562106
BANGALORE DISTRICT
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GURUMURTHY. ADVOCATE)
THIS
CRL.A
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 THE ORDER
OF ACQUITTAL DATED 25.08.2018, PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL
CIVIL
JUDGE
AND
JMFC,
ANEKAL,
IN
C.C.NO.1031/2015,
ACQUITTING
THE
Digitally signed by
NAGARATHNA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
CRL.A No. 1778 of 2019
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF
THE N.I ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Though this matter is listed at the stage of
admission, the same is taken for final disposal with the
consent of learned counsel for the appellant.
2.
This appeal arises out of judgment dated
25.08.2018
passed
in
C.C.No.1031/2015
by
the
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, wherein the
learned JMFC acquitted the accused for the offences
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'N.I. Act').
3.
Heard Sri.Srinivas, the learned counsel for
the appellant at the stage of admission itself.
4.
Though respondent is served, he remained
unrepresented.
- 3 -
5.
The
appellant
is
the
complainant
and
respondent is the accused before the Trial Court. They
will be referred as per their respective ranks held before
the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
6.
In brief the case of the complainant is that
the complainant filed a private complaint under Section
200 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short hereinafter
referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.) before the Principal Civil Judge &
JMFC, Anekal alleging that the accused has borrowed a
loan of Rs.4,00,000/- and issued the cheque which
came
to
be
dishonoured
with
an
endorsement
'insufficient funds'. Hence, the complainant has issued
the statutory notice. The accused neither replied to the
notice nor repaid the amount. Hence, the complainant
filed the complaint.
7.
The accused appeared before the Court and
his plea was recorded. Thereafter the matter was posted
for
recording
the
evidence
of
complainant
on
- 4 -
07.10.2016. Then the matter was adjourned for
recording the evidence on several occasions. On
03.02.2017, 04.03.2017 and 11.05.2017 the Presiding
Officer was on leave. Thereafter the matter adjourned
to 08.07.2017. Further, on 08.07.2017 the complainant
was present and the matter was posted to 03.08.2017.
On 03.08.2017 also, the complainant and accused were
present and time was sought for evidence. Hence, the
case was adjourned to 30.11.2017. Thereafter, on
30.11.2017, the complainant was absent and the matter
was posted to 28.12.2017. The Presiding Officer was on
training, the matter was adjourned to 26.07.2018. On
26.07.2018, for complainant's evidence time was
sought, the learned JMFC adjourned the matter to
25.08.2018 by imposing cost of Rs.500/-. Subsequently,
on
25.08.2018,
accused
was
present
and
the
complainant was absent again for examination of
complainant time was sought. The learned JMFC
rejected the prayer and dismissed the complaint for
- 5 -
non-prosecution and thereby acquitted the accused.
Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed.
8.
Perused the records. It is stated by the
appellant that the accused and complainant are known
to each other. It is stated by appellant's counsel that
the accused has taken a time stating that he will
compromise the matter and due to the said reason, the
complainant has not lead the evidence, but the learned
JMFC dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution.
9.
I have also perused the order sheet of the
Trial Court. Both the complainant and accused were
present on several dates of hearing, when the case was
posted before the Court for hearing. The Presiding
Officer was on leave and he was also on training from
28.12.2017 to 22.02.2018 and hence, the case was
posted for complainant's evidence on 26.07.2018. On
26.07.2018, the complainant was absent and accused
was
present
and
again
time
was
sought
for
- 6 -
complainant's evidence. Therefore, the learned JMFC by
imposing cost of Rs.500/- granted time till 25.08.2018.
On 25.08.2018, the accused was present. but the
complainant was absent. Hence, the complaint came to
be dismissed, as the complainant has not lead the
evidence.
10. The respondent/accused though served, he
remained
unrepresented.
Admittedly,
the
cheque
amount is Rs.4,00,000/-. The reasons stated by the
appellant's
counsel
are
not
controverted
by
the
accused/respondent.
11. It is the contention of the complainant that
the accused was requesting him to settl
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.