IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU TH DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.780 OF 2024 (A)

BETWEEN:

SRI. MALLESH C., S/O CHIKKARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.19, PUNVARVASATHI COLONY, MANCHANABELE, ARKAVATHINAGARA SEEGEHALLI GATE, KADABAGERE, BENGALURU - 562 130.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by AND:

SUMA B N Location:

HIGH COURT SRI UMESH M. K., OF S/O LATE MARTHAIAH, KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, 2ND CROSS, OPP NANJUNDESHWARA, CANDEMENTS GIDDENAHALLI MAIN ROAD, SEEGEHALLI GATE, ARKAVATHINAGARA, (PUNARVASATHI COLONY MANCHANABELE)

KADABAGERE POST, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560091.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 26.02.2024 PASSED BY LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.35/2023 AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the complainant of a case involving alleged offences punishable under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.35/2023 on the file of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, Rural District, Bengaluru, by which the appeal filed by the accused/respondent under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C challenging the validity and legality of the judgment of conviction order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rural District, Bengaluru in CC.No.9639/2021 dated 12.04.2023 has been allowed acquitting him of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The case of the complainant/appellant is that he had advanced a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- to the accused/respondent on 05.08.2017 and in repayment of the said loan, accused/respondent had issued subject cheque on 04.02.2021 that when the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Complainant/appellant had issued a notice on 02.03.2021 calling upon him to make the payment as contemplated under the law. Non- compliance with the said notice has given rise to cause of action and constrained him to file the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

4. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and produced five documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Accused/respondent pleaded not guilty and examined himself as DW1 and another witness as DW2 and got marked 8 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D8. Magistrate framed the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the complainant proves that, accused, in order to discharge the legally recoverable debt owed towards the complainant, issued the cheque bearing No.698093, 04.02.2021 for Rs.4,50,000/-, drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Machohalli Branch, Bengaluru.. When said cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment, it was dishonored for "Funds Insufficient" on 05.02.2021. Thereafter, complainant issued the notice to accused on 02.03.2021 intimating about dishonour of said cheque. Said notice was served on the accused. Thereafter, accused has not made any effort to make payment of the cheque amount. Accordingly, accused has committed offence punishable U/Sec.

138 of NI Act?

2. What order?"

5. On appreciation of evidence, passed the Judgment of Conviction and sentence dated 12.04.2023, convicting and sentencing the accused/respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, sentencing him to pay the fine of Rs.4,55,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for

3 months.

6. Being aggrieved, accused/respondent preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.35/2023, following points were framed for consideration:

"1) Whether the cheque was issued towards a time barred debt and the same would not fall within the definition of legal