IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2091 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

SMT. PARVATHAMMA

W/O LATE VENKATESH

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

R/AT NO. 34,

TATAGUNI AGARA CROSS, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,

BENGALURU - 560 070.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. MURALIDHAR S.R., ADV.)

AND:

SRI. S. CHANDRA

S/O SIDDEGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.555, 8^TH MAIN,

2^ND STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,

BENGALURU-560078.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PUTTARAJU N. H., ADV.)

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.06.2018, PASSED BY THE XVI A.C.M.M., AT BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.28112/2016, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE

P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I ACT.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 05.11.2025 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 complainant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 29^th June 2018, passed in CC No.28112 of 2016 by XVI 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 their status before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the complainant filed complaint against accused for offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The case of the complainant is that accused is in acquaintance with the complainant for the past several years, and in such acquaintance, the accused sought for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- from her during January 2016 to meet his domestic commitments. The accused stated that he will return back the same within three months. Considering the cordial relationship with the accused, the complainant advanced an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cash on 20^th January 2016 with an intention to help him to get relieved from his commitments and with anticipation and faith that he would return the same by April 2016, as promised. It is stated she had got the amount from selling the immovable property at Kumaraswamy layout, Bangalore, which she had preserved for the performance of marriage of her daughters. It is also stated that the said money was given to her daughter to take the house on lease and the same was returned by her daughter during January 2016 and she has given the amount to the accused. The accused promised to repay the amount within a span of three months i.e. by April, 2016. However, the accused failed to repay the said amount. Thereafter, when she demanded repayment of the amount repeatedly, accused issued cheque bearing No.934846 dated 6^th November, 2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Uttarahalli Branch, Bangalore, and assured that the same would be honoured on its presentation to the Bank. When the complainant presented the said cheque to the bank, the same was returned on 09^th November, 2016 with endorsement “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, the complainant, left with no other alternative, got issued legal notice to the accused on 11^th November, 2016 through RPAD calling upon him to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of said notice. Despite service of the same, accused has neither replied, nor repaid the cheque amount to complainant. Hence, she has filed a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After taking cognizance, case was registered in CC No.28112 of 2016. Summons was issued. In response to summons, accused appeared before the Court and was enlarged on bail. Substance of plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, complainant examined herself as PW1 and got marked eight documents as Exhibits C1 to C8 and produced statement of accounts as Exhibit P9. On closure of complainant's side evidence, statement of the accused under section 313 of Code