IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1236 OF 2018 (378(Cr.PC) /

419(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SRI B. RAMANA S/O SRI LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.15/A, MANIMA-2D-2, 13^TH MAIN, MARUTHI LAYOUT, BHUVNESHWARI NAGAR, NEAR GOLDEN APARTMENTS, BENGALURU-560024.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. MITHUN G.A., ADV.)

AND:

SRI P. N. MANJUNATH S/O LATE P. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, Digitally signed by R/AT NO.190, SOUNDARYA NILAYA, LAKSHMINARAYAN N 4^TH MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, Location: HIGH COURT OF DOLLORS LAYOUT, KARNATAKA J.P.NAGAR, 4^TH STAGE (SARAKKI)

BENGALURU-560078.

AND ALSO AT:

NO.30, GANIGARa 'C' LANE, NAGARATHPET CROSS, BENGALURU-560002 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RAKSHITHA P. SINGH, ADV. FOR SRI. S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADV.)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2018 PASSED BY THE XV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.12223/2017 AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Appellant/accused has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of acquittal dated 08^th June, 2019 passed in CC No.12223 of 2017 by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City (for short “the trial Court”).

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

3. Facts leading to this appeal are that, towards discharge of loan borrowed in a sum of Rs.9.00 lakh, the accused/respondent issued five cheques of different dates amounting to Rs.9.00 lakh, in favour of the appellant. Out of the said five cheques, upon presentation of the first cheque bearing No.061851 dated 30^th January, 2017 for Rs.1,00,000/- the complainant-Bank the same was dishonoured for want of funds. the appellant did not receive the cheque. After repeated visits to the Bank, the appellant came to know that the cheque was dishonoured by the respondent Bank, but the Bank did not return the original cheque to the appellant. On 20^th March, 2017, the appellant addressed a letter to the Bank for return of original cheque. The appellant-Bank through its letter dated 18^th April, 2017 informed the appellant that they have lost the cheque and issued scanned copy of the cheque. During the trial, the appellant made an application under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, for the production of secondary evidence as primary evidence is lost. The trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellant followed by acquitting the respondent. Hence, the present appeal.

4. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material placed before me. The complainant has filed complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the complaint, the complainant has clearly stated that the complainant-Bank did not return the subject cheque. On 20^th March, 2017, the complaint issued letter and demanded for the return of the instrument i.e. the subject cheque. On receipt of the complainant’s letter for return of the dishonoured cheque, the complainant-Bank by its letter dated 18th April, 2017 expressed its inability to return the same and informed that the subject cheque was misplaced and also issued a scanned copy of the cheque deposit details of the complainant dated 30^th January, 2017. The appellant-B. Ramana has also filed his affidavit by way of sworn statement, in which he has stated the same. Considering the sworn statement of the complainant, the trial Court has taken cognizance against the accused for offences under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to register a case in register No.3. Accordingly, case was registered in CC No.12223 of 2017. The trial Court has recorded the plea of the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty. To prove the guilt of the accused, complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit instead of his examination-in-chief and also filed application under S