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
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.