IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1418 OF 2022 (A)

BETWEEN:

SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR C.K.

W/O. SRI. KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.SHABARAGIRI NILAYA, 3^RD MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK, KUVEMPU NAGARA, TUMAKURU – 572 103.

… APPELLANT Digitally signed by SAMREEN (BY SRI. NARAYAN M.NAIK, ADV.)

AYUB DESHNUR L C o O c U at R io T n O : F HIGH KARNATAKA, DHARWAD AND:

BENCH SRI. NOORULLA SHARIF S/O. M.JAFFER SHARIF, MAJOR, R/AT. M. JAFFER SHARIF AND SONS, GUNS AND CARTRIDGES SELLERS (UPSTAIRS), NEAR SHARADA PLAY WOOD, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, TUMAKURU – 572 101.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN S. ADV.)

---

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

378(4) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT TUMKURU DATED 21.04.2022 PASSED IN CRL. APPEAL NO.60/2021 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.11.2021 IN C.C.NO.1411/2018 PASSED BY THE IIND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMKURU AND ETC.,.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 03.07.2025 BEFORE THE BENGALURU BENCH AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT BEFORE THE DHARWAD BENCH, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2022 in Crl.A.No.60/2021 on the file of the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur.

2. The ranking of the parties in the Trial Court, henceforth, will be considered as per their rankings in the Court for convenience.

The Factual Matrix of the case:

3. The case of the complainant is that, the accused and himself are known to each other. Pursuant to the said relationship, the accused had approached the complainant to borrow hand loan. As per the request of the accused, loan of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid on 27.11.2016. The accused undertakes to return the said amount within six months. However, the accused failed to return the amount within the said period. Thereafter, he issued a cheque dated 11.10.2017 drawn on ICICI Bank. It was presented on the said date. However, it was returned with an endorsement as “Funds insufficient”.

4. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 21.10.2017, the notice was returned on 27.10.2017. On receipt of said notice, the accused neither repaid the amount nor replied to the said notice. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The Trial Court convicted the accused, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal.

5. Heard Sri Narayan M. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Praveen S., learned counsel for the respondent.

6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that, once the cheque and signature are admitted, the presumption has to be raised in favor of the complainant. The accused has to rebut the presumption by leading cogent evidence. In the present case, the accused has not led any cogent evidence to rebut the presumption, except making some suggestions that he had received the amount as stated in the cheque.

7. It is further submitted that the Appellate Court has failed to take note of the settled principle of law that, initially, the complainant is not required to prove the case about his financial capacity. However, the Appellate Court mainly concentrated on the financial capacity of the complainant, even though the accused has not rebutted the presumption. Therefore, the impugned judgment is required to be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently, justified the judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court and further, he submitted that, the accused has rebutted the presumption by raising the valid defence. In fact, three cheques were issued to the Bank as a security for having obtained the vehicle loan. Two cheques have been misuse