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.1756/2021

BETWEEN:

SMT. RAJESHRI .M.G,

W/O ANIL KUMAR,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

RESIDING AT FLAT NO.409,

4^TH FLOOR, DS MAX SANVILL

APARTMENT, BALAJI LAYOUT,

MALLATHAHALLI,

BENGALURU-560 056.

….APPELLANT

(BY SMT. TAMILARASI .K, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR .K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. GAYASUDDIN .J,

PROPRIETOR,

M/S. G.J. PROJECTS,

HAVING OFFICE AT NO.81/A,

2^ND FLOOR, 32^ND CROSS,

2^ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,

BENGALURU-560 052

…. RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. V.S. RAVINDRA HOLLA, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C.

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND

ORDEROF ACQUITTAL IN C.C.NO.5795/2018 DATED 17.09.2021

PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND

A.C.M.M., COURT OF SMALL CAUSES(SCCH-6), BENGALURU AND

2

ALLOW

THE

ABOVE

APPEAL

AND

CONVICT

THE

RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/UNDER SECTION

N.I.ACT AND COMPENSATE THE APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 06.12.2023, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT

OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the complainant/appellant

under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. challenging the

judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.5795/2018, dated

17.09.2021 passed by IV Additional Small Causes Judge

and A.C.M.M., Court of Small Causes (SCCH-6),

Bengaluru.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties

herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by

them before the trial Court.

3.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case

are as under:

The accused is the proprietor of M/s. G.J. Projects

and was carrying business of formation of layouts and

3

selling sites. He had appointed the complainant as a

commission agent to promote his business in the year

2014-2015 and later on appointed the complainant as a

marketing manager on 28.08.2015. The accused

agreed to pay the commission to the complainant to

promote his business. The accused failed to pay the

commission

amount

as

agreed

by

him

and

subsequently, towards repayment of the said amount,

he has issued cheques dated 28.08.2018 bearing

No.079681

for

Rs.5,00,000/-,

cheque

bearing

No.079682

for

Rs.5,00,000/-,

cheque

bearing

No.076983

for

Rs.5,00,000/-,

cheque

bearing

No.320734 for Rs.5,00,000/- as well as cheque bearing

No.320374 for Rs.5,00,000/-, dated 29.08.2018 drawn

on Union Bank of India, Gandinagar Branch, Bengaluru.

When the said cheques were presented by the

complainant

for

encashment,

the

cheques

were

dishonoured for “insufficient of funds”. The complainant

4

has issued a statutory notice to the accused. The said

notice was duly served on the accused and he gave a

vague reply. Hence, the complainant claims to have

filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against

the accused, alleging that he has committed an offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.I. Act’).

4.

The learned Magistrate after recording the

sworn statement and after appreciating the documents

has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the N.I. Act and issued a process against

the accused. The accused appeared through his counsel

and he was enlarged on bail. The plea under Section

138 of the N.I. Act is framed against the accused and

he denied the same.

5.

The complainant was got examined herself as

PW1 and placed reliance on twenty one documents

5

marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. After the conclusion of the

evidence of the complainant, the statement of accused

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable the

accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing

against him in the case of the complainant. The case of

accused is of total denial. He got examined hims