1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1133 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

A.K. PREMNATH,

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

S/O P K GOVINDAN,

R/AT NO.4, 5^TH CROSS,

K H B ROAD, GOPALAPPA LAYOUT,

MANORAYANA PALYA, R T NAGAR POST,

BENGALURU – 560 032.

….APPELLANT

(BY SRI. TUMBIGI PRABHUGOUDA BASAVANTARAYAGOUDA,

ADVOCATE)

AND:

P.K. SUNDARAN,

AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

S/O LATE P K KITTA,

R/AT NO.18/3, 5^TH CROSS,

VASANTHA NAGARA,

BENGALURU – 560 052.

…. RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. MAHESH .S, ADVOCATE)

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

ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 01.03.2023 PASSED

IN CRL.A.NO.834/2020 BY THE HONBLE LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY

CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-70) AND

CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.11.2020,

PASSED

IN

C.C.NO.19799/2017

BY

THE

HON’BLE

XVIII

ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU

AND PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT

2

DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 27.11.2023, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT

OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant / complainant

challenging the judgment passed in Crl/A.No.834/2020 on

the file of LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru, dated 01.03.2023 whereby the learned Sessions

Judge has reversed the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate Bangalore in C.C.No.19799/2017 and acquitted

the accused / respondent herein.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred with original ranks occupied by them before the

trial Court.

3.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

that the accused has availed loan of Rs.10 Lakhs on

28.10.2016 and Rs.50 Lakhs on 06.11.2016 from the

complainant assuring to repay the same within three

3

months. It is also asserted that accused had also executed

on demand promissory note on the same day and issued

four post dated cheques for the Rs.10 Lakhs, Rs.22 Lakhs

and Rs.6 Lakhs on the same day i.e., 31.03.2017. When

the said cheques were presented, they were dishonored for

‘insufficient of funds’ and therefore, complainant got issued

a legal notice to the accused. The accused gave a evasive

reply and hence, the complainant asserts that he has lodged

a complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal

Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C' for short)

against the accused for the offences punishable under

Section

138

of

Negotiable

Instruments

Act,

1881

(hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I.Act' for short).

4.

The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn

statement and appreciating the documentary evidence has

taken cognizance of the offence and issued process against

the accused. Both the accused appeared through their

counsel and were enlarged on bail. The plea under Section

4

138 of N.I. Act was recorded and the same was denied by

the accused.

5.

The complainant was got examined himself as

PW1 and one witness was examined as PW2 on his behalf.

He has also placed reliance on 14 documents marked at

Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. Ex.D1 was also confronted to the

complainant PW1 and got marked during cross-examination.

Thereafter, the statement of accused under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable the accused to explain the

incriminating evidence appearing against them in the case

of the complainant. The case of accused is of total denial.

The accused No.1 got examined himself as DW1 and also

produced 13 documents marked at Ex.D1 to Ex.D13.

6.

The

learned

Magistrate

after

hearing

the

arguments and after appreciating the oral and documentary