SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 19403

- 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top