Karnataka High Court
Sri L Sudarshan vs Sri P Krishna Reddy on 7 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31328
CRL.A No. 1291 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1291 OF 2012 (A)
BETWEEN:
SRI. L. SUDARSHAN
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH REDDY
R/AT NO.22, BTR GARDEN,
KUDLU MAIN ROAD,
MADIVALA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 068
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. L. SUDARSHAN, ADVOCATE
(POLICE REPORT OF COURT NOTICE - UNSERVED))
Digitally signed
by SWAPNA V AND:
Location: high
court of SRI. P. KRISHNA REDDY
karnataka
S/O SRI PILLA REDDY,
R/AT NO.97/3-2,
1ST FLOOR, 13TH CROSS,
8TH MAIN, WILSON GARDEN,
BANGALORE - 560 030
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VASANTH MADAV, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.09.2012
PASSED BY THE XIII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.7057/2009 -
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31328
CRL.A No. 1291 of 2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant being the complainant in
C.C.No.7057/2009, on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City is impugning the
judgment dated 10.09.2012, acquitting the respondent-accused
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
3. Learned counsel representing the appellant retired
from the case and the appellant could not be served in spite of
issuance of Court notice as no such person was found in the
address. Appellant called out. Absent. Perused the materials
including the Trial Court record.
4. On going through the materials on record, the point
that would arise for my consideration is:
NC: 2024:KHC:31328
"Whether the impugned judgment of
acquittal passed by Trial Court suffers
from perversity or illegality and calls for
interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
5. On perusal of the materials on record, it is found
that the complainant contended that the accused had taken the
hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- and towards repayment of the
same, the cheque bearing No.573098 dated 10.06.2008 was
issued. On presentation of the cheque, the same was
dishonored as there was insufficient funds in the account of the
accused. Even after service of legal notice, the accused has not
repaid the cheque amount and thereby, he has committed the
offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.
6. The complainant examined himself as PW-1 and got
marked Ex-P1 to P7. The accused has denied all the
incriminating materials available on the record in his statement
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC and got examined himself
as DW-1. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all
NC: 2024:KHC:31328
these materials on record came to the conclusion that the
complainant as failed to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused is entitled
for acquittal. Accordingly, the impugned judgment came to be
passed. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before
this Court.
7. On going through the oral and documentary
evidence placed before the Trial Court and the impugned
judgment, it is found that PW-1 has admitted during cross
examination that his brother had also filed similar case against
the accused. It is also pertinent to note that PW-1 further
admitted during cross examination that he has also filed the
complainant in C.C.No.7054/2009 against the wife of the
accused and the same was compromised between the brother
of the complainant and the wife of the accused. This admission
assumes importance in the light of defence taken by the
accused that the cheque Ex-P1 was issued to the brother of the
complainant and the same was misused to file the present
complaint. Under such circumstances, it was incumbent on the
complainant to prove the existence of legally recoverable debt.
Except the bald statement of PW-1, no materials are placed
NC: 2024:KHC:31328
before the Court to substantiate the contention taken by the
complainant.
8. It is also pertinent to note that the accused had
issued reply notice as per PW-6 and examined himself as DW-1
taking the specific defence. During cross examination of the
accused, nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his
defence. Under such circumstance, it cannot be said that the
complainant is successful in proving the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for
acquittal.
9. I have gone through the impugned judgment of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into
consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed before
it and has arrived at the right conclusion. I do not find any
illegality or perversity in the judgment impugned. Hence, I am
of the opinion that no grounds are made out to entertain the
appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:31328
10. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
SPV
