Karnataka High Court
Mr.Uday S/O Laxman Mannapur vs Shri. Naveen Chandrashekar Kadannavar on 26 March, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5608
CRL.A No. 100118 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100118 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
MR. UDAY S/O. LAXMAN MANNAPUR,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MUMBAI, PRESENTLY
R/O: RAMTEERTA NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR KADANNAVAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KURABARDADDI,
LAXMI EXTENSION AREA,
OPP: G.R.B.C. COLONY,
GOKAK - 591 307.
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
Location: High
Court of THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO ALLOW THIS
CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF ACQUITTAL DATED 01.03.2018 PASSED IN C.C. NO.2317/2017
BY THE V-JMFC, BELAGAVI, AT BELAGAVI AND CONVICT THE
RESPONDENT FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881. PASS SUCH ANY OTHER
ORDER/ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5608
CRL.A No. 100118 of 2018
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant
challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 01.03.2018
passed in C.C.No.2317/2017 by the V-JMFC, Belagavi,
whereunder, respondent/accused has been acquitted for
offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
2. The case of the appellant/complainant in brief is
as under:
The complainant and the accused were well
acquainted with each other. The accused has availed a
hand loan of Rs.10,85,000/- from the complainant. For
repayment of the said loan, the accused has issued cheque
bearing No.000113 dated 06.10.2017 for Rs.10,85,000/-
in the name of complainant. The said cheque has been
presented by the complainant and it came to be
dishonoured with endorsement 'Account is dormant' under
memo dated 16.10.2017. The complainant got issued legal
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5608
notice dated 24.10.2017 and it was served on the accused
on 26.10.2017. The accused has sent his reply to the said
notice. As the accused did not pay the cheque amount, the
complainant has filed a private complaint against
respondent/accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I.
Act.
3. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance
and registered a case in C.C.No.2317/2017 against the
respondent/accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I.
Act. The plea of the accused has been recorded. The
complainant in order to prove his case has examined
himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-7. The
statement of the accused has been recorded under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. The accused did not lead any defence
evidence.
4. The learned Magistrate after hearing the
arguments on both sides, has formulated the points for
consideration and passed the impugned judgment of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5608
acquittal. The said judgment of acquittal has been
challenged by the complainant in this appeal.
5. Heard learned counsels for appellant and
respondent.
6. Learned counsel for appellant would contend
that the amount borrowed has been paid by the
complainant to the account of the accused. The said
amount has not been repaid. The complainant has not
authorized him to repay the said amount to his account
with Muragendra Swami Finance Corporation. Even
though, the accused has repaid Rs.10,85,000/- by
depositing in the account of Muragendra Swami Finance
Corporation, he has not received the said amount since
the said finance has been closed.
7. He further submits that the defence taken by
the accused in his reply-Ex.P-6 is contrary to the cross-
examination of PW-1. The complainant has not authorized
the accused to deposit the amount due to his account with
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5608
Muragendra Swami Finance Corporation. Without
considering all these aspects, learned Magistrate has erred
in acquitting the respondent/accused. With this, he prayed
to allow the appeal and convict the respondent/accused for
offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
8. Learned counsel for respondent would content
that PW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted that
accused depositing in total Rs.10,85,000/- to the account
of the complainant maintained with Muragendra Swami
Finance Corporation. The said admission itself establishes
the defence taken up by the respondent/accused in his
reply notice-Ex.P-6. Considering the said aspect, the
learned Magistrate has rightly passed judgment of
acquittal. With this, he prayed for dismissing the appeal.
9. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has
perused the impugned judgment and trial Court records.
10. Considering grounds urged, the following point
arises for consideration:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5608
i. Whether the trial Court has erred in acquitting the
respondent/accused for offence under Section 138
of N.I. Act?
11. My answer to the above point is in 'negative'
for the following reasons.
12. It is the specific case of the
appellant/complainant that he had lent Rs.10,85,000/- to
the accused and transferred that amount on four different
dates to the account of the accused. The accused in his
reply-Ex.P-6 has denied he borrowing Rs.10,85,000/-. The
accused has setup defence that the complainant was
working at Bombay, he transferred totally Rs.10,85,000/-
from his account to the account of accused maintained in
Corporation Bank with his instructions to transfer the said
amount to his account with Muragendra Swami Finance
Corporation. PW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted
that he transferring Rs.10,85,000/- from his Bank account
to the Bank account of the accused. PW-1 has also
admitted that accused has transferred in total of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5608
Rs.10,85,000/- from his account to the account of
complainant maintained with Muragendra Swami Finance
Corporation. The said aspect itself establish the defence of
the respondent/accused that the cheque-Ex.P-1 was
issued for security for the said transfer of the amount by
the complainant to the account of the accused. Merely,
because the complainant did not get the amount of
Rs.10,85,000/- from Muragendra Swami Finance
Corporation as it is closed, he cannot blame the accused
for having transferred Rs.10,85,000/- to his account with
Muragendra Swami Finance Corporation. The
appellant/complainant has initiated consumer disputes
against the Muragendra Swami Finance Corporation for
deficiency of service and complaint has been allowed.
Considering all these aspects, the learned Magistrate has
rightly acquitted the respondent/accused for offence under
Section 138 of N.I. Act. There are no grounds made out
for setting aside the well reasoned judgment of acquittal
passed by the learned Magistrate.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5608
13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
RKM/CT-ASC
