Karnataka High Court
Sri Kuruvatteppa S/O. Basappa Hadapada vs Sri. Tirukappa S/O. Sannappa Oragondar on 12 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7618
CRL.A No. 100318 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100318 OF 2017 (A)
BETWEEN:
SRI. KURUVATTEPPA
S/O. BASAPPA HADAPADA,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE,
R/O. KAVALETTU, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. TIRUKAPPA S/O. SANNAPPA ORAGONDAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS,
SRI. BANASHANKARI COMMISSION AGENCY, APMC YARD,
YASHAVANT
RANEBENNUR, PRESENTLY PROPRIETOR,
NARAYANKAR
R/O. BASAVANAGUDI NAGAR,
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI.
Date: 2025.06.13
14:12:15 +0530 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SAJID GOODWALA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378
(4) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGEMENT DATED
06.03.2013 IN C.C.NO. 684 OF 2006 PASSED BY THE ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND II ADDL. JMFC, RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI
AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 138, 142 OF THE NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENT ACT AND SECTION 420 OF IPC, BY ALLOWING
THE ABOVE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR WITH COST.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7618
CRL.A No. 100318 of 2017
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
In this appeal the appellant/complainant assailed the
judgment passed in C.C.No.684/2006 dated 03.03.2013
by the Addl. Civil Judge and II Addl. JMFC, Ranebennur
(hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Magistrate'),
whereby, the learned Magistrate acquitted the
accused/respondent for the offences punishable under
Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for
short 'N.I.Act').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.
3. The abridged facts of the case are as under:
The accused is known to the complainant and he has
borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in the year 2006 as hand
loan from the complainant with a promise to repay the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7618
HC-KAR
same. As such, he issued cheque bearing No.665361
dated 05.07.2006 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Union Bank
of India, Ranebennur Branch in favour of the complainant.
On instructions, the complainant presented the said
cheque for encashment, however, the same was
dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient' dated
18.07.2006. The said aspect was intimated to the accused
by the complainant by causing a legal notice dated
09.08.2006. The said Notice was replied by the accused on
19.08.2006. However, the accused failed to repay the
cheque amount. As such, the complainant presented the
complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the trial
Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I
Act against the accused.
4. To prove the case before the trial Court, the
complainant himself examined as PW.1 and got marked 9
documents as Exs.P1 to P9. However, the accused also
examined himself as DW.1 and got marked 5 documents
as Exs.D1 to D5.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7618
HC-KAR
5. On assessment of oral and documentary
evidence, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act.
Aggrieved by the same, the complainant preferred this
appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel Sri.
Hanumanthareddy Sahukar for the appellant, learned
counsel Sri. Sajid Goodwala for Sri.Jagadish Patil, counsel
for the respondent.
7. Besides urging several contentions, learned
counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the
trial Court grossly erred while acquitting the accused for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act
without appreciating the evidence on record in a right
perspective. He further contended that the reasoning of
the learned trial court that the complainant failed to prove
the legally enforceable debt is totally not correct, per
contra the GPA Holder of the Complainant has
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7618
HC-KAR
categorically stated in his evidence about the hand loan
borrowed by the accused and issuance of cheque in
question by the accused. The said initial presumption has
not been rebutted by the accused by a probable defence.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent contended that, the cheque in question was
issued in favour of K.B Hadapath, however he has not
given any evidence before the Court and his GPA Holder
one Marthandappa Mallappa Yaklasa has examined as
PW.1, in his evidence he has categorically stated that he
does not know as to when the accused obtained hand loan
of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant. In such
circumstance, the complainant failed to prove the legally
enforceable debt from the accused. Per contra, the
accused himself examined as DW.1 and clearly stated that
the cheque in question was obtained by the complainant
for security purpose to the loan obtained by him in the
year 2003 i.e. for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and the same
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7618
HC-KAR
was repaid by the accused thereafter, but the cheque was
not returned by the complainant and presented later for
encashment for unlawful gain. Hence, the trial Court has
rightly dismissed the complaint. Accordingly, he prays to
dismiss the appeal.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced learned counsel for the appellant and
perused the materials on record.
10. As could be gathered from the records that the
issuance of the cheque in question i.e., Ex.P1 and the
signature of the accused on Ex.P1 is undisputed. The
specific defence of the accused is that, the cheque in
question was issued in the year 2003 as a security for the
loan of Rs. 1,20,000/- obtained by him in the year 2003.
According to him, the said loan was repaid by him in the
year 2005. However, the complainant failed to return the
cheque in question and presented the same for unlawful
gain.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7618
HC-KAR
11. Admittedly, the cheque in question was issued
in favour of one K.B Hadapad i.e. the Complainant,
however, on his behalf his GPA Holder one Marthandappa
Mallappa Yaklase examined before the Court. On careful
analysis of his evidence, he has categorically deposed in
his cross examination that, he does not aware about the
date of lending hand loan by the complainant to the
accused and the loan transaction between the accused and
the complainant. He also admitted that, he do not know
the date when the accused issued the cheque in question
to the complainant, the date of presentation of the said
cheque and issuance of legal notice. Interestingly, it is
forthcoming in his evidence that, the complainant-K.B
Hadapad was very much present in the Court while his
GPA holder adducing his evidence. In such circumstance, a
doubt creates in the evidence of the GPA Holder of the
complainant. Further, the complainant is totally silent
about the defence of the accused that the cheque in
question was issued as security for the loan transaction
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7618
HC-KAR
between himself and the accused in the year 2003. Hence,
the initial presumption arising under section 118 and 139
of N.I Act is rebutted by the accused by placing probable
defence. This aspect is properly appreciated by the learned
Magistrate. I find no good grounds to interfere in the
acquittal judgment. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal No.100318/2017 is hereby
dismissed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
CT:PA
