Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ravi G.K vs Smt. Kruthi R V on 31 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30196
CRL.A No. 462 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2023 (A)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAVI G.K.
S/O SRI. KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1094, 8th MAIN
HOSAKERE HALLI,
BANASHANKARI 3rd STAGE,
BENGALURU 560 085
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA., ADVOCATE (THE SAID ADVOCATE
IS PERMITTED TO REITRE VIDE ORDER DATED:31.07.2024)
(APPELLANT-ABSENT)
AND:
1. SMT. KRUTHI R V
W/O SRI. SANTHOSH G
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
Digitally R/AT NO. 191, 3rd CROSS,
signed by
KIRAN CHANNAMMAKERE ROAD,
KUMAR R TYAGARAJANAGAR
Location:
HIGH BENGALURU SOUTH
COURT OF BENGALURU 560 028
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RENUKA SWAROOP M., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS
HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2022 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30196
CRL.A No. 462 of 2023
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ADDITIONAL CMM AT
BENGALURU (CCH-2), ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant being the complainant in C.C.
No.120/2020 on the file of the learned VI Additional Judge,
Court of Small Causes and ACMM, Bengaluru (hereinafter
referred to as 'Trial Court' for short), is impugning the
judgment of acquittal dated 20.12.2022 passed against
the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the
N.I. Act').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per the rank and status before the Trial
Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:30196
3. Both the learned counsels are absent. No
representation. Perused the materials including the Trial
Court records.
4. On going through the materials placed on
record, the point that would arise for my consideration is :
'Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal
passed by the Trial Court suffers from
perversity or illegality and calls for
interference by this Court?'
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for
the following :
REASONS
5. The appellant - complainant has filed the private
complaint against the respondent - accused stating that on
06.07.2017 the accused requested for hand loan of
Rs.5,00,000/- from him. The complainant paid
Rs.4,70,000/- through cheque and Rs.30,000/- by way of
cash and the accused had issued a cheque bearing
No.000026 dated 24.01.2019 in favour of complainant
NC: 2024:KHC:30196
towards discharge of loan amount. On 14.02.2019, the
said cheque was presented by complainant to the Bank,
but the same was returned with an endorsement by the
Bank as 'Funds insufficient'. Therefore, the complainant
has got issued a statutory notice to the accused under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act calling upon to pay the cheque
amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. But, the accused has sent an
untenable reply and failed to comply to the said demands
made in the notice. Hence, the complainant requested the
Trial Court to take cognizance and initiate legal action
against the accused.
6. The appellant being the complainant has deposed
before the Trial Court as P.W.1 and reiterated his
contention as taken by him in the complaint. He got
marked Exs.P-1 to 5 in support of his contention. The
accused has not led any evidence nor produced any
documents in support of his defence. The Trial Court
proceeded to acquit the accused by dismissing the
complaint vide judgment dated 20.12.2022. Being
NC: 2024:KHC:30196
aggrieved by the same, the complainant is before this
Court.
7. On perusal of the materials on record including the
impugned judgment, the accused has taken a specific
defence that he had already repaid an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/-. Even though the complainant admits
receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- from the accused, it is his
contention that the said payment does not relate to the
debt in question. However, he states that the said amount
is paid by the accused towards salary payable by him. The
said contention was not probablised by the complainant.
8. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has
categorically admitted that the accused had transferred
Rs.40,000/- to his Saving Bank Account on 28.08.2018,
but, however, contended that the said payment is not
towards the loan in dispute. No cogent materials are
placed before the Court by the complainant to substantiate
his contention that the admitted payments made by the
accused are not relating to the amount that was due from
NC: 2024:KHC:30196
him, which is the subject matter of the complaint. When
the accused is successful in probablising his defence that
he has already repaid the amount to the complainant, the
presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act stands
rebutted and it is for the complainant to establish his
contention regarding existence of the legally recoverable
debt. Unless the complainant discharges his burden
regarding the existence of legally recovery debt and that
the cheque in question was issued in discharge of the
same, it cannot be said that he has discharged his burden.
Under such circumstances, the accused is not liable to be
convicted.
9. I have gone through the impugned judgment of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into
consideration all the materials on record and proceeded to
dismiss the complaint. I do not find any perversity or
illegality in the said finding recorded by the Trial Court.
Hence, I answer the above point in the negative and
proceed to pass the following :
NC: 2024:KHC:30196
ORDER
Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
HNM
