IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 845 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SRI MANJUNATHA G S/O LATE GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO. 42, 8^TH CROSS, MAHESHWARINAGARA, YELAHANKA B.B ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 064.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIDHARA K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI MUNIRAJA ALSO KNOWN AS M MUNIRAJAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PANKAJA S R/AT SATHNUR VILLAGE, Location: HIGH COURT OF BAGALUR POST, JALA HOBLI, KARNATAKA BENGALURU NORTH-562 157.

…RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C (U/S 419(4)

BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DTD 14.03.2025 PASSED BY THE XII ACJM, BENGALURU, IN CC.NO.3072/2020 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed in C.C.No.3072/2020 dated 14.03.2025 by the XII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short), whereby the Trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act' for short).

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is as follows:

The accused is well acquainted with the complainant.

During the month of October, 2015, the accused along with his brother Munithimmarayappa approached the complainant to borrow a hand loan of Rs.15,00,000/- to clear his business commitments. Based on the close relationship, the complainant agreed to arrange the said money and advanced the same as a hand loan to the accused i.e., Rs.15,00,000/- in the presence of said Munithimmarayappa during the first week of October, 2015. Though the accused promised to repay the same within six months, later he extended the time for a period of one year. However, even after lapse of one year, he failed to repay the same. Finally, based on the repeated request of the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.099219 drawn on UTI Bank (now Axis Bank) Yelahanka New Town Branch, Bengaluru dated 27.09.2019 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainant towards discharging the legally recoverable debt. When the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment, the same was dishonored and an endorsement issued to that effect stating 'Account closed'. The same was intimated to the accused by the complainant by issuing a legal notice dated 19.11.2019. The said notice was duly served to the accused. Despite, the accused neither replied to the notice nor repaid the hand loan. Hence, left with no other option, the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the Trial court. After service of notice, the accused appeared before the Trial Court.

4. In order to prove the case before the Trial Court, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. The accused also examined himself as DW.1 and marked 1 document on his behalf as Ex.D1. 5. On assessing oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act, as under:

"ORDER Acting U/Sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section

138 and Section 142 of NI Act.

The bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled."

Challenge to the same is lis before this Court.

6. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. Shridhara K., for the appellant. Though notice served to the accused, he remained absent.

7. The primary contention of the learned counse