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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 52643

Crl.A.No.2000/2019

1

M

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2000/2019

BETWEEN:

MR.N.SUDHAKAR

S/O M.NATARAJAN

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

R/AT NO.1, SSS BUILDINGS

A.V.ROAD, 1ST MAIN ROAD

CHAMARAJPET

BENGALURU 3 560 018

&APPELLANT

(BY SRI.VENKATARAMANA K S, ADV.)

AND:

MRS.A.USHA

W/O SHRI.K.MANJUNATH

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

C/O SMT.SHARADAMMA

R/AT NAGI REDDY PALAYAM

ANALAYA, DANKANIKOTA

HOSUR 3 635 113

TAMILNADU 1.

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.CHANDRAHASA RAI, ADV. FOR

R.PRABHAKAR, ADV.)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF

CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL

DATED 09.10.2019 PASSED BY THE C/C XII ADDITIONAL

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN C.C.

NO.8518/2017- ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR

THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.ACT.

Crl.A.No.2000/2019

2

M

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER

HEARING

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

THROUGH

VIDEO

CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed in favour

of the respondent, the complainant in C.C.No.8518/2017

on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bengaluru has preferred the above appeal.

2.

The appellant was the complainant and the

respondent was the accused in C.C.No.8518/2017 before

the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the

parties will be referred to henceforth according to their

ranks before the trial Court.

3.

The complainant presented the cheque Ex.P1

bearing No.000125 dated 24.10.2016 drawn on Karur

Vyasa Bank for realization. The said cheque was

dishonoured

for

<other

reasons=

as

per

bank9s

endorsement Ex.P2 dated 31.12.2016. The complainant

got issued statutory notice as per Ex.P3 dated 16.01.2017

notifying the accused about dishonour of the cheque,

imputing her the act of cheating and calling upon her to

3

pay the cheque amount within 15 days. The said notice

was returned with postal endorsement 8with intimation I

served and intimation II served over seven days returned

to sender9. Ex.P4 is the said unserved postal cover along

with acknowledgement.

4.

Thereafter the complainant filed the complaint

before the trial Court in P.C.R.No.3598/2017 seeking

prosecution of the accused for the offence punishable

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 (8the Act9 for short).

5.

The case of the complainant is as follows:

The lorry of the husband of the complainant was

seized by the financier due to default in payment of the

loan amount. On the request of the accused, he lent

Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant to enable her husband

to get the seized lorry released by paying the loan

amount. The accused and her husband assured that on

releasing the vehicle, they would sell the vehicle and

repay his money, but they did not repay the amount as

agreed. When he demanded for repayment of the

4

amount,

the

accused

issued

cheque

Ex.P1

for

Rs.6,00,000/- to discharge her liability. The cheque was

dishonoured, accused did not claim the notice and pay the

amount. Thus she is liable to be punished for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Act.

6.

The trial Court on taking cognizance of the

offences, registered the case in C.C.No.8518/2017 and

summoned the accused. On her appearance, she denied

substance of accusation and claimed trial. To substantiate

his case, the complainant got examined himself as PW.1

and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. On examining under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused did not lead any

defence evidence. On hearing the parties, the trial Court

by the impugned order acquitted the accused on the

following grounds:

(i)

The cheque was dishonoured on the ground of

8other reasons9 and the complainant did not examine the

Bank Manager to explain 8other reason9;

(ii)

The complainant has not proved his lending

capacity;

5

(iii)

The complainant has not stated specifically on

which date, he lent loan to the accused and sold the

seized lorry;

(iv)

The cheque has been issued by the accused

for the purpose of security;

(v)

The complainant has not produced the income

tax returns to show that he had lent loan to the accused;

(vi)

The complainant has not adduced cogent and

convincing evidence to prove the case beyond all

reasonable doubt.

Submissions of Sri Venkataramana.K.S., learned Counsel

for the complainant assailing the impugned order are:

7.

The statutory notice was issued to the

accused to her ordinary residence. As per Section 27 of

the General Clauses Act, 1897, there is presumption

regarding service of notice to the effect that the accused

is served with the notice. During the cross-examination

of PW.1, the accused did not dispute her signature on

Ex.P1 and that the cheque was drawn on her account.

Therefore presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the

6

Act regarding passing of the consideration and the cheque

being issued for discharge of legally recoverable liability

arises. In the cross-examination of PW.1, the accused

herself suggested that the cheque was is

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