Karnataka High Court
Ishwaraja @ Vishwaradya S/O Basavaraj vs Jagannath S/O Saibanna Jamadar ... on 23 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5737
CRL.A No. 200047 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200047 OF 2023
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
ISHWARAJA @ VISHWARADYA S/O BASAVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O H NO. 1-29/44, LIG-16, BEHIND COURT,
NEAR MALAKREDDY HOSPITAL KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. HEMA L. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed JAGANNATH S/O SAIBANNA JAMADAR (MARADGI),
by RAMESH AGE:52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
MATHAPATI
R/O C/O PEERAPPA S. HUGONDI (NAGOOR),
Location: HIGH
COURT OF PLOT NO. 40, KANAKA NIVAS BHARAT COLONY,
KARNATAKA GANDHI NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.M. ALLUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378 (4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A) ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
OF THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED PASSED BY THE III ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALABURAGI IN C.C.NO.1879/2021
DATED 08.12.2022. B) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5737
CRL.A No. 200047 of 2023
HC-KAR
RESPONDENT HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH HE HAS
CHARGED AND TRIED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
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.1879/2021 on the file of the learned III Additional
Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, is impugning the
judgment dated 08.12.2022, 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.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant as
complainant has filed the private complaint in
P.C.No.324/2020 against the respondents/accused,
alleging commission of the offence punishable under
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5737
HC-KAR
Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is the contention of the
complainant before the Trial Court that, the accused had
requested him for hand-loan of Rs.2,12,000/- to meet his
family necessities on 10.03.2019 and promised to repay
the same within six months. Accordingly, the complainant
had lent the said amount, but the accused had failed to
repay the said amount. When the complainant had
insisted for repayment of the hand-loan, the accused had
issued the cheque as per Ex.P1 for Rs.2,12,000/-. When
the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was
dishonoured as there was insufficient funds in the account
of the accused.
4. The legal notice as per Ex.P3 was issued,
informing the accused regarding dishonour of the cheque
and calling upon him to repay the cheque amount. In
spite of that, the accused had not repaid the cheque
amount and thereby he has committed the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. Hence, the
complainant has requested the Trial Court to take
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5737
HC-KAR
cognizance of the offence and to initiate legal action
against the accused.
5. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence,
summoned the accused and registered the criminal case.
The accused had appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant
examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 in
support of his contention. The accused has denied all the
incriminating materials available on record in his
statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but has
not led any evidence in support of his defence. 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.
6. Heard Smt.Hema L. K., learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri M. M. Allur, learned counsel for the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5737
HC-KAR
respondent. Perused the materials on record including the
Trial Court records.
7. 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?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for
the following:
REASONS
8. It is the specific contention of the complainant
that, the accused had borrowed amount of Rs.2,12,000/-
in cash and he had paid the amount in the presence his
wife and the wife of the accused. Towards repayment of
the loan amount, the accused had issued the cheque as
per Ex.P1. The same was dishonoured as there was funds
insufficient in the account of the accused as per Ex.P2.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5737
HC-KAR
The copy of the legal notice is as per Ex.P3. It was sent
through registered post as evidenced by Ex.P4. Ex.P5 is
the postal acknowledgement for having served the legal
notice on the accused.
9. PW.1 was cross-examined at length by the
learned counsel for the accused. It was suggested to the
witness that, since the accused was the broker in the
APMC and on his assurance, the accused used to sell his
toor dal, but the same was denied by the witness.
However, during further cross-examination, the witness
has categorically stated that, he never lent any amount by
cash, but on the other hand, he had sold toor dal to the
accused. This admission was fatal to the case of the
complainant. Thereby, the accused is successful in
rebutting the legal presumption. Therefore, the burden
once again shifts on the complainant to prove lending of
the amount and existence of legally enforceable debt. The
complainant has not discharged his burden and under such
circumstances, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5737
HC-KAR
10. 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.
11. 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
