Karnataka High Court
Bellad Engineering Private Limited vs Niranjanayya Hiremath on 29 August, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11006
CRL.A No. 100186 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100186 OF 2025 (A)
BETWEEN:
BELLAD ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,
A PRIVATE COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT: UNKAL CROSS, HUBBALLI-580 031,
DIST. DHARWAD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR,
MAHESH BELLAD, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. GOURIKRUPA, NEAR AMBEDKAR HOSTEL,
MARATHA COLONY ROAD, DHARWAD-580 008.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MUBEEN K. MANIYAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NIRANJANAYYA HIREMATH,
PROPRIETOR, SHRI NIRANJAN ROAD LINES,
Digitally
signed by
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
RAKESH S
RAKESH HARIHAR AT: ANCHATGERI LAYOUT, P.B. ROAD,
S Location:
HIGH
HARIHAR COURT OF HUBBALLI-580 024, DIST. DHARWAD.
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD ... RESPONDENT
BENCH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4)
OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 419(4) OF BNSS ACT), PRAYING
TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 04.01.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF JMFC-II,
HUBBALLI IN C.C.NO.769/2019 AND CONVICT THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT, 1881 AND DIRECT THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENT TO PAY THE BALANCE/DIFFERENCE
AMOUNT TO THE COMPLAINANT/APPELLANT ALONG WITH FINE
AND LEGAL EXPENSES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11006
CRL.A No. 100186 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. This appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.
read with Section 419(4) of the BNSS, 2023 is filed by the
complainant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal
dated 04.01.2025 passed by the Court of the JMFC-II,
Hubballi in C.C. No.769 of 2019, wherein the respondent
has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section
138 of the N.I. Act, 1881.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. The appellant had filed a private complaint
before the Court of JMFC-II, Hubballi against the respondent
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
It is the case of the complainant that the respondent had
visited the complainant's showroom for purchase of a goods
vehicle and showed interest to purchase LPT 3118 TC goods
vehicle and thereafter had given a cheque bearing
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11006
HC-KAR
No.001050, dated 04.05.2019 for a sum of Rs.2,80,000/-
during the first week of May-2019. The complainant
thereafter sold the aforesaid vehicle to the respondent and
handed over possession of the same and at the time of
taking delivery of the vehicle, the respondent promised to
pay the balance amount within fortnight. In spite of
repeated reminders, the respondent had not paid the
amount and thereafter he had issued the cheque for
payment of balance amount towards the vehicle purchased.
When the said cheque dated 04.05.2019 was presented for
realisation on 07.05.2019, the same was dishonoured for
the reason "funds insufficient". Subsequently, the
respondent on the request of the complainant issued a fresh
cheque bearing No.001062 dated 11.06.2019, which was
again dishonoured by the drawee bank for "insufficient
funds".
4. The complainant thereafter got issued a legal
notice dated 20.06.2019, which was served on the
respondent on 25.06.2019 and since the amount covered
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11006
HC-KAR
under the cheque in question was not repaid in spite of
service of notice, the complainant had initiated proceedings
against the respondent for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The respondent who had
entered appearance before the trial Court had claimed to be
tried. Therefore, to substantiate its case, the complainant
had examined its Manager as PW1 and had got marked nine
documents as Exhibits P1 to P9. On behalf of the defence,
no evidence was led nor was any document got marked.
The trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on
both sides, vide the impugned judgment and order has
acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is under these circumstances,
the complainant is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant / complainant
having reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum submit that, before the trial Court, the
complainant had failed to produce necessary documents to
prove the transaction. He has filed I.A. No.2 of 2025
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11006
HC-KAR
producing copy of the letter, dated 25.04.2019 under which
the cheque in question has been issued. He submits that
respondent has failed to rebut the presumption that arises
against him under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and therefore,
the trial Court was not justified in acquitting him.
6. It is the case of the complainant / appellant that
respondent had issued the cheque bearing No.101062,
Exhibit P2, dated 11.06.2019, towards discharge of the
legally recoverable debt. According to the appellant, the
respondent had purchased a vehicle from his showroom and
towards the balance amount of the vehicle purchased, he
had issued the cheque in question. The appellant has not
produced even a scrap of paper before the trial Court to
demonstrate that respondent had purchased a vehicle from
his showroom. The particulars of the payment made by the
respondent towards the purchase of the vehicle, the total
cost of the vehicle purchased and the particulars of the
delivery of the said vehicle have not been made available to
the trial Court by the appellant. Exhibit P9 is a copy of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11006
HC-KAR
invoice and the same is not sufficient to show that the
vehicle was purchased by the respondent from the
appellant. As per Exhibit P9, the total cost of the vehicle
with applicable tax amounts to Rs.25,57,000/-. The
appellant has not produced any material to show that the
respondent had paid the remaining amount of the aforesaid
amount of Rs.25,57,000/-, except the balance amount of
Rs.2,80,000/- as contended by it. There is no material to
show that the respondent had purchased the vehicle from
the appellant and the same was delivered to the respondent
by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant has failed to
prove its transaction with the respondent, which is the basic
foundational fact, in the present case.
7. It is trite that if the basic foundational facts are
not proved, no presumption can be raised against the
accused. The appellant has now produced a letter dated
25.04.2019 along with I.A. No.2, an application filed under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to permit the
appellant to produce the additional documents. In the said
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11006
HC-KAR
letter, it is mentioned that the cheque bearing No.001050
dated 04.05.2019 for a sum of Rs.2,80,000 was issued by
the respondent to the appellant under the aforesaid letter
dated 25.04.2019. In the complaint as well as in the
affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief by PW1, it is
categorically stated that the cheuqe bearing No.001050,
dated 04.05.2019 was issued by the respondent to the
appellant during the first week of May-2019. Therefore, the
letter dated 25.04.2019, which is now produced as
additional document, is contrary to the pleadings and
deposition found in the present case. It is trite that, in
normal circumstance, this Court cannot interfere with the
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court,
unless it is found that the said judgment and order of
acquittal is perverse or has been passed without taking into
consideration the material evidence available on record.
Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to
entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the following:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11006
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Pending applications, if any, do not survive
for consideration and are accordingly
disposed of.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: BCK
