IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.718 OF 2015 BETWEEN:

SRI ABDUL RAHIMAN S/O ANDUNHI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O ARLAPADAVU HOUSE, PANAJE VILLAGE & POST, PUTTUR TALUK,D.K-574201 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADV.)

AND:

SRI JANARDHANA ACHARYA S/O AMBU ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O AJJIKALLU HOUSE, VOLAMOGRU VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK,D.K-574201 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADV.)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ORDER DATED 22.11.2010 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. S.J., DAVANAGERE IN CRL.A.NO.88/2010 - 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 17.12.2025 AND COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CAV JUDGMENT

Appellant-complainant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 30^th May, 2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2014 by the V Additional District Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, sitting at Puttur (for short "the first appellate court") whereby the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 07^th February, 2014 passed in CC No.221 of 2011 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur (for short "the trial Court"), came to be set aside.

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

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After taking cognizance, case was registered in CC No.221 of 2011. It is alleged by the complainant that accused demanded a loan of ₹79,750/- for his urgent necessities. Considering the urgency of the accused, the complainant lent a sum of ₹79,750/- with the condition to repay the same within a month. Accused agreed for the same and received the amount. Even after lapse of a month, accused did not come forward to repay the loan amount. The complainant demanded the money for which the accused issued a cheque bearing No.170791 dated 22^nd December, 2007 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Puttur Branch, assuring that the same will be honoured upon presentation. Complainant presented the cheque for encashment, but the same was returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds". Registered demand notice was issued to the accused on 5^th January, 2008 calling upon to pay the amount covered under the cheque within the stipulated period as required under the law and the same was served on the accused on 8^th January 2008. The accused instead of complying with the demand, has given frivolous reply to the said notice. Hence, the complainant presented the complaint.

4. In pursuance of summons, accused appeared before the court, plea was recorded, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, one witness was examined as PW1, four documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P4. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and adduced evidence of two witnesses as DWs1 and 2. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial court convicted the accused for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay fine of ₹1,55,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order on sentence, accused preferred appeal before the first appellate court. The same came to be allowed and the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court was set aside and accused was acquitted. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the first appellate court, the complainant has preferred this appeal. 5. Sri Harish T. Bhandary, learned C