[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri.Jesudas vs Sri.Hullure Gowda on 2 April, 2026
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18239
CRL.A No. 625 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 625 OF 2015 (A)
BETWEEN:
SRI.JESUDAS
S/O BELAVANDERAN,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.11,
RAYAPURAM MAIN ROAD,
JAGAGEEVANRAM NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 018
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANANDEESWAR D R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI.HULLURE GOWDA
Digitally S/O MARE GOWDA,
signed by
LAKSHMI T AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
Location:
High Court RESIDING AT
of Karnataka AMBARISH COMPLEX,
KALIDASA STREET,
NEAR STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
H.D. KOTE,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 114
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K S PRAVEEN KUMAR ., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADV.
FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18239
CRL.A No. 625 of 2015
HC-KAR
BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 30.04.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE LXLL ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND S.J. (CCH-63), BENGALURU IN
CRL.A.NO.1238/2014 - ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I.
ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
ORAL JUDGMENT
Appellant / complainant has preferred this appeal
challenging the judgment dated 30.04.2015 passed by the
Court of the XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.1238/2014, wherein the
learned Sessions Judge has set aside the judgment and
order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the Court of XIII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in
C.C.No.17977/2011 and acquitted the respondent /
accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the N.I.Act.
NC: 2026:KHC:18239
HC-KAR
2. Heard and perused the material on record.
3. It is the case of the complainant that he is a
registered PWD contractor and accused is doing business
under the name 'M/s Harish Traders' and he is the
proprietor of the said firm. In the second week of
December 2008, accused approached him for hand loan of
Rs.3,00,000/- for business purpose. Hence, with a good
intention, he paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused in the last
week of December 2008. The accused issued a post dated
cheque bearing No.986662 drawn on State Bank of
Mysore, H.D.Kote Branch dated 05.09.2010, assuring that
the cheque will be honoured when presented to the bank.
Thereafter, at the request of the accused, he waited till
first week of October 2010 to present the cheque and on
06.10.2010, he presented the cheque for realisation
through his bank i.e., Canara Bank, Town Hall Branch,
Bangalore, but the cheque came to be dishonoured with
shara "exceeds arrangements". He issued a legal notice
dated 18.10.2010, to which the accused replied on
NC: 2026:KHC:18239
HC-KAR
25.10.2010 denying the cheque transaction. Hence, filed
complaint against the accused for committing an offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
4. The accused denied any money transaction with
the complainant, though admitted that he is the proprietor
of M/s Harish Traders and the cheque in question belongs
to his business firm. The defence taken by the accused
was that he had lost the cheque in the month of August
2010 and the matter was reported to the concerned bank.
The said lost cheque was misused by the complainant for
illegal gain etc.
5. Before the Trial Court, the complainant got
examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.
The accused got himself examined as DW1 and got
marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D13.
6. The Learned Magistrate vide judgment dated
14.10.2014 in C.C.No.17977/2011, convicted the accused
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
NC: 2026:KHC:18239
HC-KAR
N.I.Act, holding, the complainant has established that the
accused has issued Ex.P1 cheque towards legally
recoverable debt and he has successfully proved that the
accused has committed the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
7. The Learned Sessions Judge vide impugned
judgment has set aside the judgment and order passed by
the Trial Court, which is under challenge in this appeal.
8. In this case, the accused has admitted that the
cheque in question at Ex.P1 belongs to the firm, wherein
he is the proprietor. However, he has denied any money
transaction with the complainant. When the accused has
admitted that Ex.P1 belongs to his firm, then, there is a
legal presumption in favour of the complainant. However,
the said presumption is not absolute. The accused can
rebut the said presumption by adducing acceptable legal
evidence.
NC: 2026:KHC:18239
HC-KAR
9. In this case, according to the accused, he lost
the cheque in question and he had reported the matter to
the concerned bank. Ex.D4 is the endorsement issued by
the bank on a letter given by the accused regarding loss of
cheque. In the said letter, it is stated that the cheque was
lost on 20.08.2010. The letter was given to the bank on
21.08.2010 and the endorsement was issued by the bank
on 21.08.2010.
10. The Learned Magistrate while appreciating
Ex.D4 came to the conclusion that the banker has received
the requisition on 04.08.2010, which is, much prior to the
loss of cheque according to the accused. The Learned
Sessions Judge having carefully perused Ex.D4 has come
to the conclusion that the bank has received the
letter/Exhibit D4 on 21.08.2010 and not on 04.08.2010.
Even this Court, on a careful examination of Ex.D4, is of
the opinion that the said letter dated 21.08.2010 was
received by the bank on the very same day and
acknowledged on 21.08.2010 itself and not on
NC: 2026:KHC:18239
HC-KAR
04.08.2010. Further, the Trial Court based on the
endorsement at Ex.P2, cheque was of the opinion that the
said cheque was dishonored with the shara "exceeds
arrangement" and if really the accused issued the
intimation under Ex.D4, the banker would have issued the
endorsement as 'stop payment'. However, it is to be seen
that the cheque was dishonored with an endorsement
"exceeds arrangement" on 08.10.2010, but on Ex.D4, as
already held, the banker has issued an endorsement on
the very same day i.e., on 21.08.2010. Only because the
cheque was not returned with an endorsement 'stop
payment', that itself will not disprove the document at
Ex.D4, which is endorsed by the banker, much prior to
presentation of the cheque.
11. The accused has got marked Ex.D1 and Ex.D2,
two other complaints filed by the complainant against
other persons alleging offence punishable under Section
138 of the N.I.Act. Ex.D3 is one of the cheque's in respect
of which the complaint was filed. According to the accused,
NC: 2026:KHC:18239
HC-KAR
the complainant was in the habit of filing false complaints.
Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 are not disputed by the complainant. The
accused has also produced Ex.D5 to Ex.D11, the
documents in respect of the property owned by him, and
Ex.D12, the premium paid certificate of LIC. It is the
contention of the accused that he is having an annual
income of Rs.5 to 6 Lakhs and there was no occasion for
him to take loan from the complainant. The Trial Court
based on the said documents, wherein, it reflected about
accused taking loan from the bank has drawn adverse
inference against him.
12. In this case, according to the complainant the
accused approached him in the second week of December,
2008 requesting for a hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- stating
that he has suffered loss in the business. He advanced the
said sum by cash in the last week of December 2008. The
cheque is dated 05.09.2010. According to the
complainant, the accused issued a post dated cheque.
Except the said cheque, no other documents relating to
NC: 2026:KHC:18239
HC-KAR
the money transaction are forthcoming. The complainant
has stated that he was having the amount with him
received from selling a house property. However, there is
no material placed to show that the complainant had sold
his property prior to lending loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to the
accused.
13. The accused has also relied on Exhibit D13, the
complaint lodged to the police regarding loss of cheque.
The said complaint is dated 22.10.2010. The police has
issued an endorsement of even date. The said complaint
was however, filed after receipt of legal notice by the
accused, but Ex.D4 is dated much prior to presentation of
the cheque and receipt of legal notice.
14. From the evidence and materials on record, this
Court is of the view that the accused has been able to
rebut the presumption available in favour of the
complainant. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted
the accused, assigning reasons. There are no compelling
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18239
HC-KAR
grounds to set aside the judgment. The appeal is
therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
