Manikbagh Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Sanjeev S/O Lakkappa Hanchal
2025 Latest Caselaw 8449 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Manikbagh Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Sanjeev S/O Lakkappa Hanchal on 16 September, 2025

                                             -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC-K:5478
                                                   CRL.A No. 200245 of 2022


                   HC-KAR




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                    KALABURAGI BENCH

                       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

                                          BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA


                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200245 OF 2022
                                  (378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS))
                   BETWEEN:
                   MANICKBAGH AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,
                   DELEAR OF TATA MOTORS,
                   KALABURAGI,
                   THROUGH ITS PARNTER
                   KETAN SHAH S/O SHAILESH SHAH.
                                                               ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI SHRAVAN KUMAR MATH, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:
                   SANJEEV S/O LAKKAPPA HANCHAL,
Digitally signed   AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
by RAMESH          OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS,
MATHAPATI          R/O GHATGE LAYOUT, AFZALPUR ROAD,
Location: HIGH     TQ. AND DIST KALABURAGI-585 102.
COURT OF                                                     ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
                   (BY SRI AMRUTRAO S. SUNDARKAR, ADVOCATE)

                        THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS     FILED UNDER SECTION
                   378 (4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET
                   ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
                   14.10.2022 PASSED IN C.C. NO.3876/2017 ON THE FILE OF V
                   ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALABURAGI AND TO PASS ALL
                   OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER AS MAY BE NECESSARY IN THE
                   FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
                                        -2-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC-K:5478
                                              CRL.A No. 200245 of 2022


 HC-KAR




     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:          HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA


                              ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA)

The appellant being the complainant in

C.C.No.3876/2017 on the file of the learned V-Additional

Civil Judge & JMFC, Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as

'Trial Court'), is impugning the judgment dated

14.10.2022 acquitting the respondent-accused for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 [for short, 'the N.I.Act'].

2. Heard Sri Shravan Kumar Math, learned counsel

for the appellant and Sri Amrutrao S.Sundarkar, learned

counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on

record.

3. In view of the rival contentions urged by

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would

arise for my consideration is:

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5478

HC-KAR

"Whether the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court acquitting the accused suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?"

4. My answer to the above point is in the

'Negative' for the following:

REASONS

5. The appellant herein as complainant filed the

private complaint in P.C.No.177/2017 before the Trial

Court against the respondent-accused alleging commission

of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It

is contended that the complainant is a registered

partnership firm and dealer in Tata Motors, Kalaburagi.

One of the partner of the company had filed the complaint

alleging that the accused had purchased two vehicles from

the complainant company for a total sum of

Rs.56,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same subject to

terms. However, the accused had failed to repay the loan

amount as undertaken. When the complainant insisted the

accused to repay the amount, he had issued the cheque

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5478

HC-KAR

dated 22.11.2016 for Rs.10,85,612/-. When the cheque

was presented for encashment, the same was dishonored

as there was insufficient fund in the account of the

accused. The complainant issued a legal notice to the

accused informing him regarding the dishonor of the

cheque and calling upon him to repay the cheque amount.

Inspite of service of notice, the accused has not paid the

amount due. However, the accused issued the reply taking

untenable stand and thereby committed the offence

punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, the

complainant requested the Trial Court to take cognizance

of the offence and to initiate legal action.

6. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the

offence and registered the case in C.C.No.3876/2017 and

issued summons to accused. The accused appeared before

the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The complainant examined himself as PW-1 and got

marked Exs.P-1 to P-8 in support of his contention. The

accused denied all the incriminating materials available on

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5478

HC-KAR

record in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and

examined himself as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D3 in

support of his defence. The Trial Court, after taking into

consideration all these materials on record, came to the

conclusion that the complainant has not proved the guilt of

the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly the

impugned judgment of acquittal came to be passed. Being

aggrieved by the same, the complainant is before this

Court.

7. It is brought to the notice of the Court that,

PW.1 was examined to represent the complainant

contending that he is the partner of the complainant-

company and he is authorized to represent it. However, no

document is produced in that regard. PW.1 was cross-

examined by the learned counsel for the accused on this

point and disputed his authority to represent the

complainant firm. In spite of that, no document is

produced to show his authorization to represent the

complainant and maintain the complaint. Under such

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5478

HC-KAR

circumstances, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the

complaint.

8. The accused has taken a specific defence that,

he has repaid the amount and the cheque in question was

not towards legally enforceable debt. The accused cross-

examined PW.1 in that regard and examined himself as

DW.1. Ex.D1 is the receipt dated 28.05.2016. From these

materials on record, the accused is successful in rebutting

the legal presumption and the burden shifts on the

complainant to prove the existence of legally enforceable

debt. The complainant is not successful in discharging the

burden. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the

complainant is not successful in proving the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

the N.I. Act beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused

is entitled for acquittal.

9. I have gone through the impugned judgment of

acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has

proceeded to acquit the accused on the ground that the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5478

HC-KAR

existence of legally enforceable debt is not proved by the

complainant, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the

said judgment and hence it does not call for interference

by this Court.

10. In view of the above, I answer the above point

in the negative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

(M G UMA) JUDGE

MSR

CT:PK