Karnataka High Court
Sri J Ramanaik S/O. Japanaik vs Sri M Shivanandappa S/O Kotrappa on 17 September, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12364
CRL.A No. 100074 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100074 OF 2023 (A)
BETWEEN:
SRI. J. RAMANAIK S/O. JAPANAIK,
AGE. 43 YEARS,
R/O. KOILARAGATTI THANDA VILLAGE,
TQ. HADAGALI, DIST. BALLARI-583 219.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. M. SHIVANANDAPPA S/O KOTRAPPA,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. RETIRED TEACHER,
R/O. KOILARAGATTI THANDA VILLAGE,
TQ. HADAGALI, DIST. BALLARI-583 219.
Digitally
... RESPONDENT
signed by
RAKESH S
RAKESH HARIHAR
Location:
(RESPONDENT SERVED)
S HIGH COURT
HARIHAR OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4)
OF CR.P.C., PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
13.12.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.599/2016, BY THE COURT OF
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HADAGALI MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE
RESPONDENT MAY BE CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT BY ALLOWING
THIS APPEAL WITH THE COST THROUGHOUT, IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12364
CRL.A No. 100074 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. The appellant is before this Court under Section
378(4) of the Cr.P.C., assailing the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC,
Hadagali in C.C. No.599 of 2016, dated 13.12.2022,
wherein the respondent has been acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. The appellant herein had initiated the
proceedings against the respondent herein for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the
jurisdictional Court of Magistrate. It is the case of the
appellant that respondent for his needs had borrowed a sum
of ₹8,00,000/- from the appellant and towards repayment
of the said amount, had issued the Cheque bearing
No.025499, dated 23.08.2016 drawn on BDCC Bank Ltd.,
Hadagali, in favour of the appellant and on presentation of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12364
HC-KAR
the said cheque for realisation, the drawee Bank had
dishonoured the cheque for the reason "account closed".
Thereafter, the appellant had got issued statutory notice to
the respondent and the same was replied by the
respondent. It is under these circumstances, the appellant
had approached the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate by
filing a private complaint against the respondent for offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
4. In the said case, after entering appearance, the
respondent claimed to be tried. Therefore, to substantiate
his case, the appellant had examined himself as CW1 and
had got marked 7 documents as Exs.C1 to C7. The
respondent, in support of his defence, had examined
himself as DW1 and got marked 20 documents as Exs.D1 to
D20. The learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments
addressed on both sides and also appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence, vide the impugned judgment and
order has acquitted the respondent for the reason that the
appellant has failed to prove his financial capacity to lend a
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12364
HC-KAR
loan of ₹8,00,000/- to the respondent. Challenging the said
judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant is before this
Court.
5. The appellant has examined himself before the
Trial Court as CW1 and got marked 7 documents. Ex.C1 is
the original cheque, Ex.C2 is the bank challan, Exs.C3 and
C4 are the bank endorsements, Ex.C5 is the legal notice,
Ex.C6 is the postal acknowledgment and Ex.C7 is the reply
notice given on behalf of the respondent. Except the
aforesaid documents, the appellant has not produced any
document in support of his case. So far as the respondent is
concerned, he has replied to the legal notice issued on
behalf of the appellant contending that he had not borrowed
any amount from the appellant and the cheque in question
was lost by him and thereafter he had approached his bank
and had also closed his bank account. He has also stated
that he had approached the Police and submitted a
complaint with regard to the loss of his cheque leaves.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12364
HC-KAR
6. It is not in dispute that the cheque in question
was dishonoured by the drawee Bank with a shara "account
closed". The respondent, who is a retired teacher has
examined himself as DW1 and has produced as many as 20
documents in support of his case. The material made
available to the Court by the respondent would go to show
that the respondent had retired as a Teacher in a
Government School on 30.06.2012 and he had received a
pension settlement of ₹10,35,142/- on 18.12.2022. In
addition to the same, the documentary evidence made
available by him to the Court would go to show that, he was
receiving a pension amount of ₹9,483/-, which was
subsequently enhanced to ₹12,831/- with effect from
24.06.2019. He has also produced document before the
Court to show that he had additional income from
agricultural properties and he has produced the RTC extract
of the agricultural property which he owned. The
respondent has produced the bank account statement of his
son and daughter, which would go to show that they are
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12364
HC-KAR
also earning handsome salary. The documentary evidence
produced by the respondent would go to show that he had
six LIC policies in his name and after the said policies were
matured, he had received a sum of ₹6,00,000/- and
according to the respondent, the aforesaid amount was
used by him for the purpose of constructing his house.
During the course of his deposition, he has stated that at
the time of his retirement he had a salary of ₹38,000/- per
month. Exs.D18 and D19 are the letter given to the Bank
Manager of the State Bank of Mysore and BDCC Bank about
the loss of cheque by the respondent on 22.08.2014 and
the cheque in question is one of the cheque mentioned in
the aforesaid document.
7. On the other hand, the appellant has not
produced any material before the Court to show that he had
financial capacity to lend a sum of ₹8,00,000/- in cash to
the respondent. Though, the appellant has deposed before
the trial Court that he had sold his agricultural property and
out of the sale proceeds of the said agricultural property, he
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12364
HC-KAR
had paid money to the respondent, he has failed to produce
necessary documents with regard to the alleged sale of
property by him. It is under these circumstances, the trial
Court has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant has
failed to prove his financial capacity to lend a sum of
₹8,00,000/- in cash to the respondent. It is trite that in
normal circumstances, this Court shall not interfere with the
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court,
unless the same is found to be prima facie illegal and
perverse. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good
reason to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the Criminal
Appeal is dismissed.
8. Pending applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: BCK
