Karnataka High Court
Sri J Ramanaik S/O. Japanaik vs Sri M Shivanandappa S/O Kotrappa on 17 September, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12364
CRL.A No. 100074 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100074 OF 2023 (A)
BETWEEN:
SRI. J. RAMANAIK S/O. JAPANAIK,
AGE. 43 YEARS,
R/O. KOILARAGATTI THANDA VILLAGE,
TQ. HADAGALI, DIST. BALLARI-583 219.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. M. SHIVANANDAPPA S/O KOTRAPPA,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. RETIRED TEACHER,
R/O. KOILARAGATTI THANDA VILLAGE,
TQ. HADAGALI, DIST. BALLARI-583 219.
Digitally
... RESPONDENT
signed by
RAKESH S
RAKESH HARIHAR
Location:
(RESPONDENT SERVED)
S HIGH COURT
HARIHAR OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4)
OF CR.P.C., PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
13.12.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.599/2016, BY THE COURT OF
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HADAGALI MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE
RESPONDENT MAY BE CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT BY ALLOWING
THIS APPEAL WITH THE COST THROUGHOUT, IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12364
CRL.A No. 100074 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. The appellant is before this Court under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C., assailing the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Hadagali in C.C. No.599 of 2016, dated 13.12.2022, wherein the respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. The appellant herein had initiated the proceedings against the respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate. It is the case of the appellant that respondent for his needs had borrowed a sum of ₹8,00,000/- from the appellant and towards repayment of the said amount, had issued the Cheque bearing No.025499, dated 23.08.2016 drawn on BDCC Bank Ltd., Hadagali, in favour of the appellant and on presentation of -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:12364 CRL.A No. 100074 of 2023 HC-KAR the said cheque for realisation, the drawee Bank had dishonoured the cheque for the reason "account closed". Thereafter, the appellant had got issued statutory notice to the respondent and the same was replied by the respondent. It is under these circumstances, the appellant had approached the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate by filing a private complaint against the respondent for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
4. In the said case, after entering appearance, the respondent claimed to be tried. Therefore, to substantiate his case, the appellant had examined himself as CW1 and had got marked 7 documents as Exs.C1 to C7. The respondent, in support of his defence, had examined himself as DW1 and got marked 20 documents as Exs.D1 to D20. The learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides and also appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, vide the impugned judgment and order has acquitted the respondent for the reason that the appellant has failed to prove his financial capacity to lend a -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:12364 CRL.A No. 100074 of 2023 HC-KAR loan of ₹8,00,000/- to the respondent. Challenging the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant is before this Court.
5. The appellant has examined himself before the Trial Court as CW1 and got marked 7 documents. Ex.C1 is the original cheque, Ex.C2 is the bank challan, Exs.C3 and C4 are the bank endorsements, Ex.C5 is the legal notice, Ex.C6 is the postal acknowledgment and Ex.C7 is the reply notice given on behalf of the respondent. Except the aforesaid documents, the appellant has not produced any document in support of his case. So far as the respondent is concerned, he has replied to the legal notice issued on behalf of the appellant contending that he had not borrowed any amount from the appellant and the cheque in question was lost by him and thereafter he had approached his bank and had also closed his bank account. He has also stated that he had approached the Police and submitted a complaint with regard to the loss of his cheque leaves. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12364 CRL.A No. 100074 of 2023 HC-KAR
6. It is not in dispute that the cheque in question was dishonoured by the drawee Bank with a shara "account closed". The respondent, who is a retired teacher has examined himself as DW1 and has produced as many as 20 documents in support of his case. The material made available to the Court by the respondent would go to show that the respondent had retired as a Teacher in a Government School on 30.06.2012 and he had received a pension settlement of ₹10,35,142/- on 18.12.2022. In addition to the same, the documentary evidence made available by him to the Court would go to show that, he was receiving a pension amount of ₹9,483/-, which was subsequently enhanced to ₹12,831/- with effect from 24.06.2019. He has also produced document before the Court to show that he had additional income from agricultural properties and he has produced the RTC extract of the agricultural property which he owned. The respondent has produced the bank account statement of his son and daughter, which would go to show that they are -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:12364 CRL.A No. 100074 of 2023 HC-KAR also earning handsome salary. The documentary evidence produced by the respondent would go to show that he had six LIC policies in his name and after the said policies were matured, he had received a sum of ₹6,00,000/- and according to the respondent, the aforesaid amount was used by him for the purpose of constructing his house. During the course of his deposition, he has stated that at the time of his retirement he had a salary of ₹38,000/- per month. Exs.D18 and D19 are the letter given to the Bank Manager of the State Bank of Mysore and BDCC Bank about the loss of cheque by the respondent on 22.08.2014 and the cheque in question is one of the cheque mentioned in the aforesaid document.
7. On the other hand, the appellant has not produced any material before the Court to show that he had financial capacity to lend a sum of ₹8,00,000/- in cash to the respondent. Though, the appellant has deposed before the trial Court that he had sold his agricultural property and out of the sale proceeds of the said agricultural property, he -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:12364 CRL.A No. 100074 of 2023 HC-KAR had paid money to the respondent, he has failed to produce necessary documents with regard to the alleged sale of property by him. It is under these circumstances, the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove his financial capacity to lend a sum of ₹8,00,000/- in cash to the respondent. It is trite that in normal circumstances, this Court shall not interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, unless the same is found to be prima facie illegal and perverse. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good reason to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
8. Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE VNP / CT: BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30