Karnataka High Court
Satigouda Bhimagouda Patil vs Mahantesh Rudrappa Kanti on 2 February, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2336
CRL.A No. 100272 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100272 OF 2022 (A)
BETWEEN:
SATIGOUDA BHIMAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KHANAPUR, (NANDAGAON),
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591321.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI YASH R. NADKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MAHANTESH RUDRAPPA KANTI
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. HOTEL BUSINESS,
R/O.MUSAGUPPI, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591312.
...RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF
Digitally signed
by SUJATA
SUBHASH
CR.P.C. SEEKING THAT THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.04.2021 IN
PAMMAR
Date: C.C.NO. 200/2016 BY THE PRL. JMFC, GOKAK ACQUITTING THE
2024.02.13
17:13:59
+0530 ACCUSED FOR OFFENSE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS ACT 1881 MAY BE SET-ASIDE BY CONVICTING
THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR OFFENSE UNDER SECTION
138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 1881.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2336
CRL.A No. 100272 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of the
Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the Judgment and order
of acquittal passed in C.C.No.200/2016 dated 05.04.2021
by the Court of Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Gokak, wherein the respondent accused has been
acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N.I.Act).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. The appellant-complainant had initiated
proceedings against the respondent for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, before the trial
Court. The respondent having entered appearance before
the trial Court claimed to be tried.
4. In support of his case, the appellant had
examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 6 documents
as Exs.P.1 to P6. The Trial Court thereafter heard the
arguments addressed on behalf of both sides and vide the
impugned Judgment and order, acquitted the respondent
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2336
Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-complainant is
before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant having
reiterated the grounds urged in the memorandum of
appeal, submits that the trial Court was not justified in
acquitting the respondent when he had not denied the
cheque in question and also the signature on the cheque in
question. He submits that burden is on the respondent to
explain as to how the cheque in question had reached the
appellant.
6. The appellant/complainant is said to be an
agriculturist by avocation. It is his case that he was
acquainted with the respondent and he had given him a
hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and towards repayment
of same, respondent had issued cheque bearing
No.947562 dated 26.04.2013 drawn in his favour for a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is the specific case of the
appellant that he had given hand loan to the respondent
for the purpose of his hotel business. The said cheque
was dishonoured when the same was presented for
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2336
realization by the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant got
issued legal notice to the respondent which was duly
replied by him. In the reply notice-Ex.P6, the respondent
had denied any transaction with the appellant and he also
had questioned the financial capacity of the appellant. In
addition to that, he had taken the specific defence that
cheque in question was given to one Gururaj Rangagappa
Pujari under a sale transaction which the respondent had
entered with and the said cheque was misused by the
appellant.
7. The material on record would go to show that
the appellant and his family members together own 4
acres 31 guntas of land in Khanapur. The appellant (CW1)
has admitted during the course of his cross examination
that there is a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- on the aforesaid
properties and the properties are mortgaged as security to
the said loan. He also has admitted that in respect of
another item of land bearing R.S.no.27/1 which stands in
his father's name, there is a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- and the
said property was also mortgaged. He also has admitted
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2336
that they are totally five siblings and they reside as a joint
family.
8. The appellant during the course of his cross
examination has stated that he does not know the name of
the respondent and he also has stated that he does not
know where the respondent's hotel is situated. He also
has stated that he does not know the name of any of
relatives of the respondent. Therefore, a serious doubt
arises with regard to the acquaintance of the appellant
with the respondent. In addition to the same, admittedly,
the joint family of the appellant has borrowed huge loan
on their agricultural property and therefore, it becomes
highly doubtful whether the appellant had lent a huge sum
of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent in cash for the purpose
of development of his hotel. It has come on record that
the appellant does not know the name of hotel nor does he
know the location of the hotel. The trial Court having
appreciated all these aspects of the matter has rightly held
that appellant has failed to discharge his initial burden and
has failed to prove that there was a transaction between
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2336
him and respondent under which he had paid a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- in cash. It is under these circumstances,
the trial Court has proceeded to acquit the respondent for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.
9. From the appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence on record, a serious doubt arises
with regard to genuineness of the claim made by the
appellant and therefore, the defence put forth by the
respondent accused get probabalised. Under these
circumstances, no fault can be found in the judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. It also cannot
be said that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by
trial Court is totally illegal or perverse in nature.
Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with
the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial
Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently,
pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
