IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1195 OF 2013 BETWEEN:

HAVYAKA FINANCE LIMITED, COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.438, 1^ST FLOOR, BETWEEN 7^TH AND 8^TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE WHICH IS REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER MR. C. SUBRAMANYA SHASTHRY S/O ISHWARA SHASTRY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT MOODAMBAIL HOUSE, PUNACHA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K DISTRICT WHO IS ALSO BRANCH MANAGER OF ITS VITTAL BRANCH - 574219 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADV.)

AND:

SANDEEP KUMAR SHETTY V. S/O RAMANANDA SHETTY V.

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT CAR STREET, VITTAL, POST: VITTAL KASABA, BANTWAL TALUK, DK-574243.

…RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - SANDEEP KUMAR SHETTY V. - ABSENT.) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. SR. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., BANTWAL, D.K. IN C.C.NO.24/2010 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I.ACT.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 29.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CAV JUDGMENT

The appellant has preferred this appeal against judgment of acquittal passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, D.K., Mangaluru, in CC No.24 of 2010 dated

10^th October, 2013 (for short "the trial Court").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the complainant has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is alleged by the complainant that one Padmanabha S/o Rama Poojary borrowed loan of Rs.48,000/- from the complainant in the month of October, 2002 for his domestic necessities. The complainant sanctioned the loan to Padmanabha on 30^th October, 2002 at the rate of interest 16% per annum. The loan transaction is numbered as PL/63/2002. The accused and one Ishwara S. stood as co-obligants to the loan borrowed by Padmanabha. The accused is jointly and severally liable for the said loan along with principal borrower and another co-obligant. The loan so borrowed was not repaid. When Sri Subrahmanya Shastry, Manager of the complainant-Finance Company of Vitla Branch, approached the accused in his residence on 14^th September, 2005, the accused has issued a cheque for Rs.71,040/- inclusive of interest in favour of SCDCC Bank Ltd., Vitla Branch bearing Cheque No.0414121. When the cheque was presented for encashment, the cheque was dishonored with an endorsement "Funds insufficient".

4. On 15.12.2005, the complainant has issued legal notice to the accused through his Advocate, the same was served on the accused on 16.12.2005. Accused has issued frivolous reply. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint.

5. After taking cognizance, the trial Court issued summons to the accused. In response to the summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and was enlarged on bail. Plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.

6. To prove the guilt of the complainant, the Manager of the complainant's Company was examined as PW1 and twelve documents were got marked as Exhibits P1 to P12. On closure of the evidence of the complainant, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused has denied the prosecution evidence and he has not chosen to adduce defence evidence, but got one document marked as Exhibit D1.

7. The complainant has submitted written arguments and having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused, the trial Court had acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the acquittal judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

8