Karnataka High Court
B. Ramachandrappa S/O Sanna Dodda vs R. Hanumanthreddy on 19 February, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4021
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100110 OF 2016 (A)
BETWEEN:
B. RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O. SANNA DODDA BASAPPA,
MAJOR, R/O. KOLI, BAZAAR, 7TH WARD, KUDITHINI,
TQ & DIST: BALLARI.
REPRESENTED BY HIS SON
G.P.A. HOLDER BY NAME
B.RAMAKRISHNA S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 31 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS PERSON,
R/O KOLI BAZAAR, 7TH WARD, KUDITHINI,
TQ AND DIST: BALLARI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. AMAREGOUDA, ADVOCATE)
ANNAPURNA AND:
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL R. HANUMANTH REDDY,
Digitally signed by FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA AGE:MAJOR, R/O 4TH FLOOR,
DANDAGAL
Date: 2024.02.21
KAKATEEYA RESIDENCY,
14:48:12 +0530 NEAR MAREMMA TEMPLE,
KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.
...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT - SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.378(4) OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 08.02.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, BALLARI IN C.C.NO.487/2012 AND THE SAME MAY
BE PLEASED TO BE CANCELLED AND FURTHER IT IS HUMBLY
PRAYED THAT THE ACCUSED BE CONVICTED AND PUNISHED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4021
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2016
ACCORDINGLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW U/SEC. 138 OF NI.
ACT AND THE RESPONDENTS ACCUSED MAY PLEASE BE
DIRECTED TO MAKE IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF RS.1,00,000/-
ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18% PER ANNUM
AND ALSO THEY BE DIRECTED TO COMPENSATE THE
COMPLAINANT EQUIVALENT TO THE MONEY COVERED BY THE
CHEQUE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. is
filed by the complainant with a prayer to set aside the
Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court of III
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari in Criminal Case
No.487/2012 dated 08.02.2016 (for short, 'the Trial
Court'), wherein the respondent has been acquitted for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act')
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. Respondent who is served in the matter is
remained un-represented before this Court.
4. The complainant had initiated proceedings
before the Trial Court against the respondent herein for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. It
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4021
is the case of complainant that the accused had borrowed
a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and towards repayment
of the said amount, he had issued the cheque in question
dated 10.05.2012 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Ballary
branch in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was
dishonored when the same was presented for realization
by the complainant. Complainant thereafter, complied the
statutory requirements as provided under provisions of NI
Act and had filed the complaint before the Trial Court with
a prayer to convict the respondent for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. In the said
proceedings, the respondent had appeared before the Trial
Court and pleaded not guilty.
5. In order to substantiate his case, complainant had
examined his General Power of Attorney Holder Sri B.
Rama Krishna as P.W.1 and got marked 05 documents as
Ex.P.1 to 5. On behalf of defence, respondent examined
himself as DW-1 and also got marked 04 documents as
Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4. The Trial Court after hearing arguments
addressed on both sides, vide the impugned Judgment and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4021
order, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the NI Act. Being aggrieved by the
same, the complainant is before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant
submits that the Trial Court was not justified in acquitting
the respondent, when the material on record would show
that he had not disputed the signature found in the cheque
and also the transaction between the parties. He submits
that the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent only on
the ground that the General Power of Attorney holder had
no knowledge about the transaction between the
complainant and respondent.
7. The material on record would go to show that in
the complaint, the complainant has specifically averred
that he had advanced an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the
respondent herein on 10.03.2012 and towards repayment
of the said amount, the respondent had issued the post
dated cheque bearing No.918291 dated 10.08.2012 drawn
on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Ballary in his favour. Even in the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4021
sworn statement that was recorded by the Trial Court, the
complainant has reiterated the same.
8. On behalf of the complainant, his Power of
Attorney holder Sri Rama Krishna, who is also his son, was
examined before the Trial Court as P.W.1. P.W.1 in his
affidavit has stated that he had advanced a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent on 10.03.2012 and
towards repayment of said amount, the cheque in question
was issued. During the course of his cross-examination, he
has reiterated the said statement made by him in the
affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief and has stated
that on 10.03.2012, he had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
to the respondent.
9. The evidence of P.W.1 is contrary to the
averments made in the complaint and also to the
averments made in the sworn statement of the
complainant. In addition to the same, P.W.1 who is the
General Power of Attorney holder of complainant has
stated that he is not aware of the transaction between the
complainant and the respondent. It is trite that GPA holder
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4021
can be examined on behalf of principal, on the merits of
the case, only if the power of attorney holder is personally
aware about the transaction between the principal and the
respondent. Since the General Power of Attorney holder
P.W.1 has made statements contrary to the complaint
averments and he also has stated that he was not aware
of the transaction between the complainant and the
respondent, the alleged transaction between the
complainant and the respondent was not proved by the
complainant in the present case. The respondent had
examined himself as DW-1 and he had categorically stated
that he did not have any transaction with the complainant
and cheque in question was issued as a security to the
transaction between the complainant and his friend Venkat
Rao. Having regard to the contrary statements made by
the complainant as well as his General Power of Attorney
holder, the defence of the respondent gets probabalised.
10. The trial Court having appreciated this aspect of
the matter, has rightly acquitted the respondent for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. I do
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4021
not find any illegality or perversity in the said Judgment
and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Under the
circumstances, I am of the view that appeal lacks merits.
Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CKK
CT:GSM
