1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200028/2014

BETWEEN:

Sri. Sangayya s/o Adivayya Salimath

Age: 58 Years Occ: Proprietor,

M/s. Rajashree Agro Service, Bijapur

R/o: Near Mugulkhod Math Solapur Road,

Bijapur.

…APPELLANT

(By Shri. S. S. Mamadapur, Advocate)

AND:

Sri. Shankargouda s/o Dyamappagouda

Biradar,

Age: 58 Years Occ: Agriculture

R/o: Gabasavalagi Tq: Sindagi.

Dist: Bijapur-586 101.

… RESPONDENT

(By Sri. Ravi Madabhavi, Advocate)

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (4)

Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set-aside the judgment

and order of acquittal dated 17.09.2013 passed by the

learned

II

Addl.

JMFC

Bijapur

in

C.C.No.471/2005

acquitting the respondent herein for the offences under

Section 138 of N.I. Act and convict the sentence the

respondent for such offence in accordance with law.

This appeal having been heard, reserved for judgment

and coming on for pronouncement of judgment this day, this

court delivered the following:

2

JUDGMENT

This appeal lays challenge to the Judgment of

acquittal passed by the learned II Addl. JMFC Bijapur

in C.C. No.471/2005 dated: 17-09-2013 for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument

Act.

2.

The appellant was the complainant and the

respondent was the accused before the trial court. For

the

purpose

of

convenience

the

appellant

and

respondent will be referred as complainant and accused

as per their respective ranks before the trial court.

3.

The appellant/complainant filed complaint

under section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure before

the J.M.F.C Court stating that, the accused has

committed an offence punishable under section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act.

4.

It is the case of the complainant that, he was

having a dealership of tractor and its equipment at

3

Vijayapur and he was carrying on the business in the

name of M/s Rajashree Agro Services. The accused and

complainant were close friends and there were many

transactions between them. The accused purchased

tractor from the complainant. He used to take hand

loan from the complainant for his family necessity and

return back.

It is the case of the complainant that, on 11-06-

2003 the accused approached the complainant with a

request to lend hand loan of Rs.52,000/- for his family

needs and for repair of Tractor. Looking to the previous

transaction the complainant agreed to pay Rs.52,000/-

and as security of the said amount, he issued post

dated cheque dated: 26-07-2003 drawn in the Grameen

Bank, branch Aski Taluka Sindagi bearing cheque

No0136305 for Rs.52,000/-. He also executed a 'Kaigad

patra' i.e. "Hand loan deed" for the same amount. As

requested by the accused, the complainant presented

said cheque dated: 26-07-2003 for encashment, but the

4

same was returned dishonored with the endorsement

that the funds insufficient. The complainant issued

legal notice on 28-11-2003 calling upon the accused to

pay the amount, but the notice was returned with

endorsement

as

"refused".

Thereafter

he

lodged

complaint in this regard as the accused did not paid

amount to him.

5.

The accused appeared before the trial court.

6.

Thereafter

words

the

learned

J.M.F.C.

recorded the Plea by putting substance of accusation to

accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act. The accused pleaded not

guilty and claims to be tried.

7.

The complainant got examined himself as

PW.1 and one witness as PW.2 and got marked 15

documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and closed his side

evidence.

5

8.

The statement of accused as required

U/sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorde