Karnataka High Court
Neelamma W/O Sangayya vs Yunus Khan on 22 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5698
CRL.A No. 200085 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200085 OF 2023
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SMT. NEELAMMA W/O SANGAYYA,
AGE:49 YEARS,
OCC: H.HOLD ANG AGRICULTURE LABOUR,
R/O. VADDARHATTI CAMP, TQ. GANGAVATHI,
NOW R/O. PWD CAMP, SINDHANOOR,
TQ. SINDHANOOR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B. K. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR SRI YUNUS KHAN
Location: HIGH S/O LATE MUNAVAR SHAREEF,
COURT OF AGE:MAJOR,
KARNATAKA OCC: VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
KALMANGI CIRCLE,
R/O. NEAR RICE MILL OF SUBBA RAO
GANGANAGAR, SINDHANOOR,
TQ: SINDHANOOR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 128.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. VIJAYA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5698
CRL.A No. 200085 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378 (4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SINDHANUR IN C.C.NO.608/2013
DATED 31.12.2022 AND THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED BE
PUNISHED UNDER SECTION 138 ON NI ACT AND DIRECT TO
HIM TO PAY SUITABLE COMPENSATION AMOUNT WITH
INTEREST.
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.608/2013 on the file of the learned Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur, is impugning the judgment
dated 31.12.2022, acquitting the accused/respondent for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'N.I. Act').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5698
HC-KAR
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant as
complainant has filed the private complaint against the
respondents/accused, alleging commission of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is the
contention of the complainant before the Trial Court that,
the accused along with his mother Syedabi requested the
complainant to purchase their residential plot bearing CMC
No.6-1-1209(old) 6-1-1387(new) measuring:EW-25 ft.
and NS-30 ft. totally measuring 750 sq. ft. including the
house constructed thereon measuring 200 sq. ft., situated
in Survey No.762, Ward No.13 of Mahaboobiya Colony,
Sindhanur. The complainant had agreed to purchase the
plot for total consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. The accused
and his mother initially demanded Rs.3,00,000/-. The
complainant had paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the mother of the
accused in the presence of the accused during July, 2010
and they assured to execute the sale deed within three
months by receiving the balance consideration amount.
But after receipt of initial payment of Rs.3,00,000/-, the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5698
HC-KAR
accused and his mother have not come forward to execute
the sale deed. When the complainant demanded to
execute the sale deed, they started giving evasive reply.
Finally, the accused gave the cheque bearing No.819033
for Rs.1,50,000/- on 01.10.2012 and another cheque
bearing No.301560 for Rs.1,50,000/- dated 16.10.2012.
When the cheque bearing No.301560 was presented for
encashment, the same was dishonoured as there was
'insufficient funds' in the account of the accused. In spite
of service of legal notice, the accused has not repaid the
cheque amount and thereby committed the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act.
4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offence, summoned the accused and registered
C.C.No.608/2013. The accused had appeared before the
Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The
complainant examined herself as PW.1 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P6 in support of her contention. The accused had
denied all the incriminating materials available on record
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5698
HC-KAR
in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
and examined himself as DW.1. The Trial Court after
taking into consideration all the materials on record
passed the impugned judgment, acquitting the accused for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant is before
this Court.
5. Heard Sri B.K.Hiremath, learned counsel for the
appellant and Smt.Vijaya M. Patil, learned counsel for the
respondent. Perused the materials on record including the
Trial Court records.
6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would
arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court suffers
from infirmities and calls for interference by
this Court?"
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5698
HC-KAR
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for
the following:
REASONS
7. It is the specific contention of the complainant
that, the mother of the accused was the owner of the plot
in question along with residential house and the
complainant had agreed to purchase the same for total
consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- at the instance of the
accused and his mother. The complainant had paid
advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- during July, 2010 but
later the accused and his mother have not come forward
to execute the sale deed. Hence, the accused had issued
the cheque as per Ex.P1 for Rs.1,50,000/-. When the
same was presented for encashment, the same was
dishonoured for insufficiency of funds in the account of the
accused. In spite of service of legal notice, the accused
had not repaid the said amount and thereby he has
committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the N.I. Act.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5698
HC-KAR
8. To prove her contentions, the complainant
examined herself as PW.1. Even though in the affidavit,
the complainant had reiterated her contentions as taken in
the private complaint, during her cross-examination, the
complainant has specifically stated that, the accused had
come to her sister's house seeking financial help and
accordingly, the she had paid loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to the
accused. Towards repayment of the loan amount, the
accused had issued cheque as per Ex.P1. It is also sated
by the complainant that, there was a proposal to purchase
the house property, but the property was standing in the
name of one Vinod, whom she does not know. She has
not collected any of the documents pertaining to the
property but had given the advance amount of
Rs.3,00,000/-. On the date when she gave cash of
Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused, he had issued the cheque as
per Ex.P1.
9. The tenor of cross-examination of PW.1 and the
evidence of DW.1 before the Trial Court discloses that, the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5698
HC-KAR
accused has not disputed that the cheque - Ex.P1 belongs
to his Bank account and it bears his signature. When the
accused admitted issuance of the cheque along with his
signature, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of
the N.I. Act would arise. The burden shifts on the accused
to rebut the said presumption.
10. It is pertinent to note that, the complainant has
pleaded regarding an agreement to purchase the plot
along with residential house for Rs.5,00,000/- and paying
Rs.3,00,000/- to the mother of the accused as advance
amount. But such contention was given a go-by during
the cross-examination and it is stated that it was the loan
transaction and the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to
the accused and on the same day, the accused had issued
the cheque as per Ex.P1. As there are glaring
inconsistencies in the contention taken by the complainant
at each stage, it rebuts the legal presumption under
Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. Under such
circumstances, the complainant is liable to prove payment
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5698
HC-KAR
of the amount and issuance of cheque towards discharge
of legally enforceable debt. The complainant has not
made any effort to prove such contention and under such
circumstances, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
11. I have gone through the impugned judgment of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into
consideration all these materials on record and has arrived
at a right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere
with the same.
12. In view of the above, I answer the above point
in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The criminal appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
SRT
CT:PK
