Karnataka High Court
Sri S P Bahubali vs Sri N Narasimha Murthy on 27 May, 2024
1 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.12 OF 2015
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.13 OF 2015
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.14 OF 2015
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.15 OF 2015
IN CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI S P BAHUBALI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
SON OF SRI S J PADMARAJ,
RESIDING AT NO.23/1, FLAT NO.102,
4TH MAIN ROAD, GANGANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
......APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SATYANARAYANA CHALKE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SARAVANA S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI N NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
SON OF SRI LATE UGREGOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO.21/1, SUHRUTH, 2ND FLOOR,
YAMUNA BAI ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
ALSO AT: PARTNER
M/S MOTI MAHAL HOTEL,
5TH MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. C V ANNAIAH, ADVOCATE)
2 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
OF ACQUITTAL DATED 18.10.2014 IN C.C.NO.21404/2009,
PASSED BY THE XV ACMM, BENGALURU CITY AND FURTHER
BE PLEASED TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.ACT; b) PASS
SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN FAVOUR OF
THE APPELLANT, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
IN CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI S P BAHUBALI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
SON OF SRI S J PADMARAJ,
RESIDING AT NO.23/1, FLAT NO.102,
4TH MAIN ROAD, GANGANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
......APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SATYANARAYANA CHALKE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SARAVANA S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI N NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
SON OF SRI LATE UGREGOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO.21/1, SUHRUTH, 2ND FLOOR,
YAMUNA BAI ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
ALSO AT: PARTNER
M/S MOTI MAHAL HOTEL,
5TH MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. C V ANNAIAH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
OF ACQUITTAL DATED 18.10.2014 IN C.C.NO.21136/2009,
PASSED BY THE XV ACMM, BENGALURU CITY AND FURTHER
3 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
BE PLEASED TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.ACT; b) PASS
SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN FAVOUR OF
THE APPELLANT, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
IN CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI S P BAHUBALI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
SON OF SRI S J PADMARAJ,
RESIDING AT NO.23/1, FLAT NO.102,
4TH MAIN ROAD, GANGANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
......APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SATYANARAYANA CHALKE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SARAVANA S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI N NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
SON OF SRI LATE UGREGOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO.21/1, SUHRUTH, 2ND FLOOR,
YAMUNA BAI ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
ALSO AT: PARTNER
M/S MOTI MAHAL HOTEL,
5TH MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. C V ANNAIAH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
OF ACQUITTAL DATED 18.10.2014 IN C.C.NO.21135/2009,
PASSED BY THE XV ACMM, BENGALURU CITY AND FURTHER
BE PLEASED TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.ACT; b) PASS
SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
4 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN FAVOUR OF
THE APPELLANT, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
IN CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI S P BAHUBALI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
SON OF SRI S J PADMARAJ,
RESIDING AT NO.23/1, FLAT NO.102,
4TH MAIN ROAD, GANGANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
......APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SATYANARAYANA CHALKE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SARAVANA S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI N NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
SON OF SRI LATE UGREGOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO.21/1, SUHRUTH, 2ND FLOOR,
YAMUNA BAI ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
ALSO AT:
M/S MOTI MAHAL HOTEL,
5TH MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. C V ANNAIAH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
OF ACQUITTAL DATED 18.10.2014 IN C.C.NO.21102/2009,
PASSED BY THE XV ACMM, BENGALURU CITY AND FURTHER
BE PLEASED TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.ACT; b) PASS
SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN FAVOUR OF
THE APPELLANT, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
5 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 13.03.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals filed under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C.
are by the complainant challenging the acquittal of
respondent/accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for
short 'N.I. Act').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to by their rank before the trial Court.
3. Since the complainant and accused are
common and the transaction out of which the four
cheques came to be issued are the same, the evidence
led by both parties in all the four cases is exactly the
same, these appeals are clubbed and disposed of by a
common order.
4. It is the case of complainant in respect of
payment and discharge of his liability to the complainant,
6 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
accused issued 4 cheques for Rs.5 lakhs each, drawn on
his account, maintained with Sri Thyagaraja Co-operative
Bank Ltd, J.P Nagar Ist Phase branch, Bengaluru, with an
assurance that they would be honoured on presentation.
As per the instructions of the accused, complainant
presented the cheques for realisation through his banker,
M/s Dena Bank, K.G Road branch, Bengaluru. However,
they were returned with endorsement account closed. On
receipt of intimation, complainant got issued legal notice
dated 27.6.2009 through RPAD and Certificate of Posting.
The same is duly served on the accused. However,
accused has not paid the amount due. On the other
hand he has sent an evasive reply and hence the
complaint.
5. After due service of summons, the accused
has appeared before the trial Court and contested the
matter.
6. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
7. In order to prove the allegations against the
accused, complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and
got marked Ex. P1 to 9.
8. During the course of his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has denied incriminating
evidence led by the complainant.
9. In all the four cases, the accused has
examined himself as DW-1. He has got marked Ex.D1 to
14.
10. Vide the impugned judgments and orders, the
trial Court has dismissed the complaints.
11. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has
filed these appeals, contending that there is total non-
application of mind on the part of the trial Court and
while doing so it has not appreciated the facts and
material on record, both oral and document, in its proper
perspective. The trial Court has failed to agree that
complainant has complied with all the necessary
ingredients, for the offence punishable under Section 138
8 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
of N.I Act and thereby committed grave error. The
impugned judgment and order are bad in law and
requires to be set aside. The trial Court has failed to
appreciate that the complainant is having the benefit of
presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act and the
same is not rebutted by the accused. Under such
circumstances, the trial Court has erred in acquitting the
accused.
11.1 The trial Court has failed to appreciate the
fact that complainant is having sufficient credibility to
pay the loan in question and committed a grave error in
arriving at conclusion that complainant had no financial
capacity to lend Rs.20 lakhs to the accused . Despite
leading lengthy evidence, the accused has failed to rebut
presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act and
therefore the burden has not shifted on the complainant
to prove his case. Thus the complainant has led
elaborate evidence to prove the allegations against the
accused. The same is not appreciated by the trial Court
9 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
in proper perspective and as such the impugned
judgment and order are perverse.
11.2 The trial Court has erred in not appreciating
the fact that the subject cheque itself is the proof for the
advancement of loan and therefore, no other document
is required to establish the said fact. The trial Court has
also erred in holding that the accused is financially sound
and as such the case of the complainant that he has lent
Rs.20 lakhs to accused is doubtful. Viewed from any
angle, the impugned judgments and orders are not
tenable and calls for interference by this Court and hence
the appeals.
12. On the other hand learned counsel for accused
has supported the impugned judgments and orders and
submitted that the complainant has failed to prove his
financial capacity and that he has lent Rs.20 lakhs to the
accused. On the other hand by preponderance of
probability, the accused has established that the cheques
in question were issued blank during 1997 when accused
borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant
10 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
and though he paid the said amount, complainant failed
to return the cheques. Later at the instance of one
Anand Kumar Bhandari with whom the accused had
several disputes, complainant has filed these complaints
by utilising the old cheques. In fact, accused never had
the necessity of borrowing Rs.20 lakhs from the
complainant and appreciating these aspects, the trial
Court has rightly dismissed the complaints and pray to
dismiss the appeal also.
13. In support of his arguments, learned counsel
for accused has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) S.Timmappa Vs. L. S.Prakash (Timmappa)1
(ii) Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa
(Basalingappa)2
(iii) Amzad Pasha Vs. H.N.Lakshmana
(Amzad Pasha)3
(iv) K.Subramani Vs. K.Damodara Naidu
(K.Subramani)4
(v) Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu (Since deceased)
Through LRs Vs. Maruthachalam (Since
deceased) Through LRs (Rajaram Sriramulu
Naidu)5
1
2010 Crl.L.J. 3386
2
AIR 2019 SC 1983
3
2011 Cri.L.J 552
4
2015 AIR SCW 64
11 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
(vi) Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya
G.Hegde (Krishna Janardhan Bhat)6
(vii) John K.John Vs. Tom Varghese and Anr.
(John)7
(viii) Charles Harry Vs. Praveen Jain
(Charles Harry)8
14. Thus, it is the definite case of complainant
that accused borrowed a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from him
and issued the subject cheques towards payment of the
same. However, on presentation they were dishonoured
on the ground that the account is closed. Despite service
of notice when accused failed to pay the amount due
under the cheques, he has filed these complaints.
15. Though, accused admit that the subject
cheques are drawn on his account, maintained with his
banker and it bears his signature and they were issued to
the complainant, he has denied that he borrowed Rs.20
lakhs from the complainant and issued the subject
cheques towards repayment of it. On the other hand as
5
AIR 2023 SC 471
6
2008 AIR SCW 738
7
2007 AIR SCW 6736
8
2024 (1) KCCR 545
12 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
claimed that during 1997 he had borrowed Four times
Rs.10,000/- each from the complainant and issued four
blank cheques to the complainant as per his directions
and even though he repaid the said amount, the blank
cheques remained with the complainant and at the
instance of one Anand Kumar Bhandari, utilising the old
cheques complainant has filed these complaints. At the
trial, the accused has also challenged the financial
capacity of complainant to lend him and necessity of
accused to borrow 20 lakhs.
16. Having regard to the fact that the cheques in
question belongs to the accused, drawn on his account
maintained with his banker and they bear his signatures,
presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act comes into
operation in favour of the complainant to the effect that
the cheques are issued towards repayment of any legally
recoverable debt or liability, placing the initial burden on
the accused to prove otherwise and the circumstances in
which cheques came to be issued to the accused or
reached the hands of complainant. In the present case,
13 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
in the reply to the legal notice itself, the accused has
come up with the definite stand that he never borrowed
Rs.20 lakhs from the complainant and on the other hand,
the subject cheques were issued blank when he had
borrowed Rs.40,000/- from the complainant during 1997,
and he has misused the same to file these complaints.
17. However, in John K.Abraham Vs. Simon C.
Abraham & Anr (John K.Abraham)9, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that in order to draw presumption
under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I Act, the burden lies
on the complainant to show that:
(i) She had the requisite funds for advancing
the sum of money/loan in question to
accused.
(ii) The issuance of cheque by accused in
support of repayment of money advanced
was true and
(iii) The accused was bound to make payment
as had been agreed while issuing cheque in
favour of the complainant.
9
(2014) 2 SCC 236
14 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
18. In Tedhi Singh Vs Narayan Das Mahant
(Tedhi Singh)10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
where the accused has failed to send reply to the legal
notice, challenging the financial capacity of the
complainant, at the first instance, complainant need not
prove his financial capacity. However, at the trial if the
financial capacity of complainant is challenged, then it is
for the complainant to prove the same. In the present
case, though the accused sent reply to the legal notice,
therein, he has not disputed the financial capacity of the
complainant. However, at the trial, he has questioned
the source through which he has allegedly paid Rs.20
lakhs to the accused. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the
complainant to prove his financial capacity despite their
being a presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act,
operating in favour of the complainant.
19. In APS Forex vs Shakti International Fashion
Linkers Pvt. Ltd (APS Forex)11, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that when accused raises issue of financial
10
2022 SCC OnLine SC 302
11
(2020) 12 SCC 724
15 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
capacity of complainant, in support of his probable
defence, despite presumption operating in favour of
complainant regarding legally enforceable debt under
Section 139 of N.I. Act, onus shifts again on the
complainant to prove his financial capacity by leading
evidence, more particularly when it is a case of giving
loan by cash and thereafter issue of cheque.
20. In Vijay Vs. Laxman and Anr (Vijay)12,
K.Subramani Vs. K.Damadara Naidu (K.Subramani)13
and K.Prakashan Vs. P.K.Surenderan (K.Prakashan)14,
also the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, is a rebuttable
presumption and when accused rebut the same by
preponderance of probabilities, it is for the complainant to
prove his case beyond reasonable doubt including the
financial capacity.
21. In the light of the ratio in the above decisions,
at the outset, it is necessary to examine whether the
12
(2013) 3 SCC 86
13
(2015) 1 SCC 99
14
(2008) 1 SCC 258
16 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
complainant has proved his financial capacity to lend
Rs.20 lakhs to the accused. During the course of his
examination-in-chief, the complainant has not lead any
oral or documentary evidence to prove his financial
capacity. During his cross-examination, complainant has
deposed that his family is having a Complex consisting of
72 shops and above it, he is running a hostel for
students. It is elicited that the tenant in the said shops
are in occupation therein since the time of his
grandfather and father and the rent paid by them is also
old rents and they have not been revised recently.
22. Complainant has also admitted that those
tenants have not paid any advance to him, but claimed
that he has received good will in a sum of Rs.30 lakhs
from the tenants. However, no documents are produced
to evidence the said fact. The complainant also conceded
that whatever rent he receives from the shops is utilised
for repairing and maintenance of the same. Complainant
has also claimed that he was running a lodge by name
Sagari. He is also a partner of Hotel Suprabhata situated
17 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
in Anand Rao Circle, but he is not getting any income
from the same.
23. When a specific question was put as to
whether he is having any documents to show that the at
relevant point of time, he was in possession of Rs.20
lakhs, complainant has answered in the negative. He is
also unable to state the date, month and the year in
which he had lent Rs.20 lakhs to the accused. Though he
has claimed that he is an income tax assessee and
periodically submits returns, as conceded by him in the
said returns, the fact of he having advanced hand loan of
rupees Rs.20 lakhs to the accused is not reflected.
Despite denying that he had no financial capacity to lend
Rs.20 lakhs, the complainant has not produced even a
scrap of paper to prove the same.
24. On the other hand, during the course of his
examination-in-chief, the accused has deposed in detail
that earlier he was supplying food to the Mico factory in
the name and style of Murthy and Company and for the
said business, he had opened the account in question on
18 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
which the subject cheques have been drawn. He has also
deposed that during 1996, he was supplied with a
cheque book consisting of 25 cheque leaves and he had
given four of them, which are the subject cheques to the
complainant while borrowing Rs.40,000/- in four
instalments of Rs.10,000/- each. Though he has repaid
the same, complainant failed to return the cheques and
on that basis, he has filed the present complaints.
25. Accused has specifically deposed that after the
contract between him and MICO factory regarding supply
of food came to an end in 2000, he stopped operating
the said account and therefore bank closed it during
2003. The accused has produced his account statements
to show that the cheques in the series to which the
subjects belong are utilised within 1998. Admittedly, the
subject cheques are printed before 2000, and though the
complainant has claimed that the loan was borrowed by
the accused during 2009, he has not resisted the issue of
cheques which are printed before the year 2000. Having
regard the fact that earlier more particularly during 1997
19 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
accused was in the habit of borrowing hand loan from the
complainant and the cheques are printed before 2000, it
corroborate and support the defence of the accused that
they were issued for an earlier transaction in blank and
they have been utilised subsequently, especially when
the complainant has failed to prove his financial capacity.
Complainant is also not in a position to state for what
purpose accused was in need of such a substantial sum
of Rs.20 lakhs.
26. On the other hand, the oral and documentary
evidence led by the accused prove the fact that he is a
partner in hotel Moti Mahal and hotel Highland and
getting income of Rs.40,000 to 50,000/- per month. As
per Ex.D3(a) he has received a sum of Rs.53 lakhs
during December 2005 with regard to joint development
of hotel Highland. As per Ex.D4(a) he has periodically
received a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- per month towards land
rent. In fact, during his cross-examination, complainant
has admitted that accused is owning several income
generating properties.
20 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
27. During the cross-examination of complainant,
the accused has elicited that One Anand Kumar Bhandari
was a common friend of complainant and accused. He
was also a tenant under the accused. On account of
certain dispute between them, several complaints and
cases were filed against each other and the relationship
between them was spoiled. The accused has also
produced documents to show that the relationship
between accused and said Anand Kumar Bhandari was
spoiled and several litigation were fought between them.
In fact, as per Ex.D12, eight criminal complaints are filed
by the said Anand Kumar Bhandari against the accused
are dismissed and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has upheld the same.
28. The accused has also succeeded in securing a
decree for recovery of possession of the property from
the said Anand Kumar bhandari. Having regard to the
fact that the said Anand Kumar Bhandari continued to be
a good friend of complainant, probabalise the defence of
the accused that at his instance, he has chosen to
21 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
prosecute the accused. While the complainant has failed
to prove his financial capacity and that he has lent Rs.20
lakhs to the accused, the accused on the other hand
proved that he is having sufficient income of his own and
he had no necessity of borrowing Rs.20 lakhs from the
complainant.
29. Moreover, in the complaint, the complainant
has not averred as to the nature of the transaction that
took place between him and the accused. He has not
even stated for what purpose the loan was borrowed and
the date month and year of the transaction. According to
the complainant, the transaction is of the year 2009
during the period Rs.20 lakhs is quite substantial money
and at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be excepted
that complainant do not remember the date month and
year of the transaction. It appears since the cheques are
printed before the year 2000 and complaint is filed
during 2009, very consciously the complainant has
chosen not to plead about the transaction, lest the
accused may take the plea of limitation. The very fact
22 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
that the cheque leaves in question are printed before the
year 2000 supports the contention of the accused that
they were issued by him in 1997.
30. In S.Thimmappa, the Co-ordinate Bench of
the Court, on facts held that in the absence of pleading
with regard to the date on which the loan was advanced
and inconsistency, the case of the complainant was
rejected and acquittal of the accused was upheld.
However, the ratio in that case and in Krishna
Janardhan Bhat that the existence of debt is not the
subject matter of presumption under Section 139 is over
ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs Sri
Mohan (Rangappa)15. In Basalingappa, Amzad
Pasha, K Subramani, it was held that despite
presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act, on the failure
of the complainant to prove his financial capacity, the
complaint is liable to be dismissed. In Rajaram
Sriramulu Naidu, the fact that in the income tax return,
the complainant failed to disclose the fact of lending
15
(2010) 11 SCC 441
23 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
money to the accused was held to be one of the grounds
to reject the case of the complainant.
31. In the present case also, the complainant has
failed to plead and prove the facts regarding advancing
hand loan to the accused and he has also failed to prove
his financial capacity. Taking into consideration the oral
and documentary evidence placed on record the trial
Court has come to a correct conclusion that charges
against accused are not proved and acquitted him. The
findings of the trial Court is consistent with the evidence
brought on record by both parties. On re-appreciation of
the entire evidence placed on record, this Court finds no
justifiable grounds to interfere with the conclusions
arrived at by the trial Court. In the result, all the appeals
fails and accordingly the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeals filed by the complainant under Section
378(4) of Cr.P.C. are dismissed.
(ii) The impugned common judgment and order
dated 18.10.2014 in C.C.No.21102/2009 c/w
c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015
CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015
C.C.Nos.21135/2009, 21136/2009 and
21404/2009 on the file of XV ACMM, Bengaluru
is hereby confirmed.
(iii) The registry is directed to send back the trial
Court records along with copy of this
judgment forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR
