- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2661/2012

BETWEEN

SMT.MEERA M. DESHAPANDE,

AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER,

R/O. MEERAPUR GALLI, SHAHAPUR,

DIST: BELGAUM 590001.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI.VITTHAL S TELI)

AND

SHRI.SANDEEP S. CHANDAGADKAR

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,

R/O. 9TH CROSS, SHAHU NAGAR,

BELGAUM 590001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.BAHUBALI N KANABARGI, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 378(4) OF

CR.P.C.

SEEKING

TO

SET

ASIDE

THE

JUDGMENT

DATED

15.12.2011 IN C.C.NO.1416/2010 PASSED BY THE III ADDL.

CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BELGAUM AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL

THEREBY

PUNISH

THE

RESPONDENT/ACCUSED

FOR

THE

OFFENCE U/SEC. 138 OF N.I.ACT.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING

THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

- 2 -

JUDGMENT

The appellant/complainant is before this Court

praying to set aside the impugned judgment of

acquittal

dated

15.12.2011,

passed

in

C.C.No.1416/2010, on the file of the learned III

Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi (for short,

‘the trial Court’), wherein the complaint filed by the

appellant against the respondent/accused alleging

commission of the offence punishable under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short, ‘the

N.I. Act’), was came to be dismissed.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties in

this appeal are referred to as per their status and

ranking before the trial Court.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant

as

complainant

filed

the

private

complaint

in

P.C.No.20/2003 before the trial Court against the

- 3 -

respondent/accused

alleging

commission

of

the

offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is

contended that the complainant was serving as a

teacher in Cantonment School, Belagavi and retired

from service on 05.10.2000. She had deposited her

pensionary benefits in fixed deposit in Sangli Bank at

Shahpur, Belagavi.

4.

The accused was closely aquatinted with the

family members of the complainant and during July-

2002 by raising the loan on her fixed deposit, lent had

loan of Rs.60,000/- to the accused. The accused

promised to repay the loan amount and issued the

cheque

bearing

No.311741

dated

31.10.2002

for

Rs.59,995/- drawn on Shri.Basaweshwar Co-operative

Bank Limited, Belagavi, towards discharge of the

legally recoverable debt. When the said cheque was

presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured

as there was insufficient funds in the account of the

- 4 -

accused. The complainant issued the legal notice

informing the accused regarding dishonour of the

cheque and calling upon him to repay the cheque

amount. The notice was served on the accused, but he

neither replied to the said notice nor complied with

the demands made therein. Thereby he has committed

the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

Accordingly, the complainant requested the trial Court

to take cognizance of the offence and to initiate legal

action against the accused.

5.

The

trial

Court

took

cognizance

of

the

offence

alleged

against

the

accused

and

issued

summons to the accused to answer the charge. The

accused appeared before the trial Court represented

by his advocate and pleaded not guilty for the charges

levelled

against

him.

The

complainant

examined

herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 in

support of her contention. The accused has denied all

- 5 -

the incriminating materials available on record in his

statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He

has also filed his written version but has not chosen

to lead any evidence in support of his contention.

6.

The

trial

Court

after

taking

into

consideration all these materials on record, came to

the conclusion that the complainant has not proved

the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable