IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 422 OF 2014 BETWEEN:

RAMESHA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS PLUMBER, R/A H.NO.3036, V P BORE, HUNSUR TOWN MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 105.

…APPELLANT Digitally signe d by (BY SRI RAJANNA, ADVOCATE)

LAKSHMINARAYANA MUR THY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH AND:

COUR T OF KARNATAKA SMT. LAKSHMAMMA T W/O T HOMBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS COOLIE AT PUBLIC BOYS PRE-METRIC HOSTEL BANNIKUPPE VILLAGE & POST KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 105.

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ROJA M R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHANTESH S HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) Cr.P.C.

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR IN C.C.No.326/2011 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.

ACT AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 04.04.2014 passed in C.C. No. 326/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, whereunder the respondent - accused has been acquitted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the `N.I. Act’).

2. Case of the complainant in brief is, that the respondent - accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant for her legal necessity and executed an On Demand Promisory Note and consideration receipt agreeing to repay the same with interest at 2% per month. Inspite of repeated requests and demands, the respondent - accused did not pay the amount borrowed and therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice on 04.10.2010 and it has been served on the respondent - accused on 07.10.2010. After receipt of the said notice, the respondent - accused approached the complainant and issued a cheque bearing No. 083077 dated 23.10.2010 drawn on State Bank of Mysuru, Hunsur Branch for a sum of Rs.2,52,000/-. Said cheque, on presentation, came to be dishonoured for insufficient funds. The complainant got issued legal notice on 20.11.2010 and it has been served on the respondent - accused. As the respondent - accused did not pay the cheque amount, the complainant has filed a complaint. After recording the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the respondent - accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and a case came to be registered in C.C. No. 326/2011. Plea of the respondent - accused came to be recorded. The complainant, in order to prove his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. Statement of the respondent - accused came to bee recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The respondent - accused examined herself as D.W.1 and examined one witness as D.W.2 and got marked one document as Ex.D.1. After hearing arguments on both sides, learned Magistrate formulated points for consideration and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal. Said judgment of acquittal has been challenged by the complainant in this appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for appellant –

complainant and learned counsel for respondent - accused.

4. Learned counsel for appellant would contend that the respondent – accused, for meeting the medical expenses of her son, had borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- agreeing to pay interest at 2% per month and executed an On Demand Promisory Note and consideration receipt. In order to re-pay the same, she had issued Ex.P.1 – cheque and it came to be dishonoured for want of funds. Evidence of P.W.1 itself prove the said lending and receipt of amount by the respondent - accused. The respondent - accused has not given any reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant. As the cheque is admitted, a presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is required to be raised