IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100240/2015

BETWEEN:

VEERAPPA S/O SIDDALINGAPPA HATTI,

AGE: 56 YEARS,

OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,

R/O YALMALLI ONI, MELINPETH,

HAVERI-581110.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI N.P.VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE)

AND

RAJASHEKHAR S/O GADIGEPPA SHETTAR,

AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

R/O BANKAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON,

DIST: HAVERI.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

378(4) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT

AND ORDER OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,

HAVERI DATED 31.08.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.22/2010

AND

CONVICT

THE

RESPONDENT

FOR

OFFENCE

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT.

2

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS

DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Challenging the judgment dated 31.08.2015 passed

by

Addl.

Civil

Judge

and

J.M.F.C.,

Haveri

in

C.C.No.22/2010, acquitting accused for offence punishable

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I.Act’), present appeal

is filed.

2.

Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a

complaint came to be filed on 22.08.2009 stating that

complainant

and

accused

were

doing

grocery

shop

business. The complainant was wholesaler and accused

was retailer. Since ten to twelve years, accused was

purchasing groceries from complainant and there was

friendship between them. As such on 03.03.2009, accused

placed an order for supply of groceries worth Rs.50,000/-

and requested them to be dispatched to complainant. In

pursuance of request, complainant dispatched said goods

though B.M.Ullagaddi, driver of goods vehicle bearing

3

registration No.KA-27/8381. Despite delivery of goods,

accused did not make payment of said sum. On demand

for payment, accused issued a cheque dated 25.05.2009

bearing No.500059 drawn on Canara Bank, Bankapur. The

same

was

presented

for

collection

on

25.05.2009.

However,

it

was

returned

on

27.06.2009

with

an

endorsement “no such account”. The intimation was

received

by

complainant

on

03.07.2009.

Thereafter

complainant approached accused by going to his town on

04.07.2009 and requested payment. However, accused

refused to make payment. Thereafter complainant got

issued statutory notice dated 22.07.2009 and sent it

through RPAD. The same was received by accused on

27.07.2009. Accused issued a reply dated 10.08.2009, but

did not make any payment. Hence, complaint was filed.

3.

After recording sworn statement of complainant

and taking cognizance, trial court issued summons to

accused. On appearance, accused denied charges and

sought trial. In support of complaint, complainant got

4

himself examined as PW1 and another witness as PW2 and

got marked Exhibits P1 to P22. Thereafter incriminating

material was explained to accused, who denied the same

and sought permission to lead evidence. His statement

under Section 313 was recorded. Thereafter accused got

himself examined as DW1 and got marked Exhibits D1 to

D10.

4.

On

consideration

of

the

same,

trial

Court

framed following points for its consideration.

1. Whether

the

complainant

proves

that

towards the legally enforceable debt, the

accused

has

issued

the

cheque

for

Rs.50,000/-

bearing

No.500059,

dtd.25.05.2009

drawn

on

Canara

Bank,

Bankapur Branch and when the complainant

presented the cheque for encashment, the

said cheque was dishonored for the reason

“no such account” and accused has failed to

comply with the demand made in the legal

notice

dtd:22.07.2009

and

thereby

committed the offence punishable U/Sec.

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?

2. What order or sentence?

5

5.

After answering point no.1 in the negative, trial

court proceeded to pass the impugned order acquitting

ac