Karnataka High Court
Sri C Ramachandra vs Sri T Malleshappa on 4 March, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9268
CRL.A No. 197 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.197 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. C. RAMACHANDRA,
S/O CHANNABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT KALKERE CAMP,
KALKUNTE POST,
DAVANAGERE TALUK
AND DISTRICT-577 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SRI. T. MALLESHAPPA,
by DEVIKA M S/O THIMMAPPA,
Location: HIGH AGE: MAJOR,
COURT OF PROPRIETOR,
KARNATAKA
SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA WINES,
WATER TANK ROAD,
HIRIYUR-572 143.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4)
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
7.9.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
C.J.M., DAVANAGERE IN C.C.NO.236/2012 - ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9268
CRL.A No. 197 of 2014
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed against the order of acquittal
passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act' for
short).
3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant is
that the accused had approached the complainant since both of
them are well known to each other. The accused borrowed an
amount of Rs.1 lakh on 02.09.2008 from the complainant and
promised to repay the said amount within three months and he
did not repay and hence issued the post dated cheque dated
10.12.2008 and when the said cheque was presented, the same
was returned with an endorsement "funds insufficient". Hence,
the notice was issued and served and the accused did not
comply with the demand and hence complaint was filed and
cognizance was taken and the accused was secured and he did
not plead guilty. The complainant in order to prove his case
NC: 2025:KHC:9268
examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at
Exs.P.1 to 7. On the other hand, the accused examined himself
as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 9. The
Trial Court considered both the evidence of the complainant and
accused and the documentary evidence, particularly taken note
of the answers elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 during the
course of cross-examination. P.W.1 admitted that both of them
are working in arrack Company and denied the suggestion that
the accused is the owner of Lakshmi Venkateshwara Wine shop,
where he was working as vendor. However in his further cross-
examination when the document of Ex.D.2 was confronted to
him, he admits that he was an employee under the accused and
hence the Trial Court taken note of the documents of Ex.D.2 and
Ex.D.3, which clearly shows that the complainant was an
employee under the accused. The Trial Court also observed that
if that is taken into consideration, it creates doubt in the mind of
the Court for having lent the money by the employee in favour
of the employer. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that
the accused bank statement i.e., Lakshmi Venkateshwara
Wines, shows that the accused was transacting in lakhs. When
such being the position, it cannot be believed that the accused
has borrowed loan of Rs.1 lakh from his employee.
NC: 2025:KHC:9268
4. It is the case of the accused that the complainant
has committed the theft of cheque and the same was misused.
In this regard, the accused had lodged the complaint and police
did not accept the same and hence PCR No.5/2009 was filed and
cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under
Sections 408, 409, 420, 465, 474 and 379 of IPC. The Trial
Court taken note of Exs.D.1 and 4, copy of the notice sent to the
accused, wherein with regard to mentioning the date is
concerned, there is a correction and hence comes to the
conclusion that there is material alteration. Apart from that, the
complainant has deposed that he has lent the money out of the
agricultural income of his parents and with regard to that he was
having Rs.1 lakh, nothing is placed on record and hence doubted
the capacity of the complainant in lending the money of Rs.1
laksh in favour of the accused. The Trial Court also taken note
of that the cheque was not only returned for insufficient funds,
but also for want of proprietor seal. Having perused the
document of Ex.P.1, it does not disclose or depict the sale of the
said ownership of the accused. Having considered all these
materials into consideration, the Trial Court comes to the
conclusion that the case of the complainant cannot be accepted.
NC: 2025:KHC:9268
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the respondent and also considering
the material on record, the points that arise for the
consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error
in acquitting the accused and whether it
requires interference of this Court?
(ii) What order?
Point No.(i):
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that there is no material alteration and brought to the notice of
this Court document Ex.P.2 cheque and having considered the
same regarding date is concerned, the number which was put
appears to be in different ink and it does not bear the seal of the
accused. Apart from that, the documents Exs.D.2 and 3, which
have been placed before the Court clearly discloses the
employment of the complainant with the accused and the same
is taken note of by the Trial Court. The complaint was given by
the accused in terms of Ex.D.5 with regard to the theft of the
cheque book and also publication was given and copy of the
complaint filed is marked in terms of Ex.D.7. Having considered
these documents, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that
NC: 2025:KHC:9268
the very case of the complainant is doubtful. Having considered
the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, the very contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court
committed an error in dismissing the complaint cannot be
accepted. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial
Court in appreciating and considering the plausible defence of
the accused and a reasoned order has been passed by the Trial
Court and hence it does not require interference of this Court.
Point No.(ii):
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
