[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Goudappagouda Karigouda Patil vs Siddappa Basavanneppa Hunasannavar on 5 February, 2026
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1694
CRL.A No. 100272 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100272 OF 2019 (A)
BETWEEN:
GOUDAPPAGOUDA KARIGOUDA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE AND DOCTOR IN PROFESSION,
R/O. SHIRUR, TQ. KUNDAGOL,
NOW R/O. DOOR NO.279, 52ND CROSS,
4TH BLOCK, RAJAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.R. GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SIDDAPPA BASAVANNEPPA HUNASANNAVAR
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BENAKANAHALLI, TQ. KUNDAGOL.
DIST. DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by
(BY SRI.ANKIT DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR
VIJAYALAKSHMI VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI M KANKUPPI
Date: 2026.02.10
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
10:40:50 +0530
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 18.04.2019
PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, KUNDAGOL, IN
C.C.NO.01/2019 AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT, BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1694
CRL.A No. 100272 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The judgment and order dated 18.04.2019 passed by the
Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundagol in
C.C.No.1/2018, thereby acquitting the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (for short, N.I. Act) is challenged by the complainant in this
appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant
and the learned counsel for the respondent/accused. Perused the
material on record, including the impugned judgment passed by
the trial Court.
3. It is the case of complainant that he is a Doctor by
profession and owns agricultural lands at his native village. He
gets income from his landed properties as well as from his
medical profession. He knows the accused since long time and
they had financial transaction. The accused met him in the third
week of December, 2014 and requested to lend loan of
Rs.5,00,000/- to meet his legal necessity. Therefore, he
advanced the said loan on 24.12.2014. The accused agreed to
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1694
HC-KAR
repay the loan within 4 months, but failed to fulfill the promise.
On 05.05.2015, when the complainant demanded the accused to
repay the loan, accused issued a cheque bearing No. C/MGB
No.740991 dated 05.05.2015 of Karnataka Vikas Grameena
(Malaprabha Grameena) Bank. The said cheque when presented
at Syndicate Bank, was returned for insufficient funds in the
account of the accused to honour the cheque. The complainant
issued a legal notice, for which the accused did not send any
reply and therefore, he filed the complaint.
4. Before the trial Court, the complainant got himself
examined as P.W.1 and examined one witness as P.W.2. He got
marked Exs.P1 to P7. The accused got himself examined as
D.W.1 and got marked two documents as Exs.D1 and D2.
5. The learned Magistrate vide impugned judgment,
acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section
138 of the N.I. Act, which is challenged by the complainant in
this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that
the cheque in question belongs to the accused is not disputed
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1694
HC-KAR
and even the signature on the cheque has not been disputed by
the accused and therefore, a presumption arises in favour of the
complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. He contended
that inspite of issuance of notice and service of the said notice on
the accused, he did not reply to the said notice and only during
trial, he has come up with a false defence stating that the
cheque was misused by the complainant. He contended that
complainant by examining himself and also by examining P.W.2,
has established the issuance of cheque by the accused to the
complainant towards loan of Rs.5,00,000/- received by him and
dishonour of the said cheque, amounts to an offence punishable
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He contended that the trial
Court without properly appreciating the evidence on record, has
erroneously acquitted the accused. Therefore, sought to reverse
the judgment of acquittal and convict the accused, by allowing
the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused
contended that the complainant is a stranger to the accused and
at no point of time, the cheque was handed over to him towards
any loan taken from the complainant. He contended that the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1694
HC-KAR
complainant has utterly failed to establish his financial capacity
to lend a huge loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is his contention that one
Ananda Girimallanavar and the accused were residing in the
same room at Benakanahalli village, while they were in P.U.C. In
the said room, there were a group of students who used to
collect Rs.100/- each every month and deposit the said amount
in the account of the accused, to use it for the need of the
students. The accused used to give the duly signed cheque to his
friend Ananda Girimallanavar and one such cheque was misused
by his brother i.e., P.W.2, who gave it over to the complainant,
who filed a false complaint against the accused. He contended
that the accused by adducing the defence evidence, has rebutted
the presumption and the trial Court having appreciated the entire
evidence and material on record, rightly acquitted the accused.
Therefore, sought to dismiss the appeal.
8. In the case on hand, there is no much dispute that the
cheque belonged to the accused. It is also not disputed that the
signature on the said cheque was of the accused. It is the
contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that in
such an event, a presumption arises under Section 139 of N.I.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1694
HC-KAR
Act in favour of the complainant. He has relied on a judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex in the case of Thongam Tarun Singh Vs.
State of Manipur1. In the said judgment, it is held that 'if a
person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee
remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the
presumption that the cheque had been issued for a payment of
the debt, or in discharge of a liability. Further, it is immaterial
that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other
than the drawer. If the cheque is duly signed by the drawer, and
otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be
attracted.'
9. In the present case, the issuance of cheque to the
complainant is disputed by the accused. The accused has also
questioned the financial capacity of the complainant to lend a
huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- without there being any other
document in that regard.
10. According to the complainant, he is a medical
practitioner and also owns landed properties at Shiruru and
Benakanahalli village. It is admitted that complainant instituted a
AIR 2019 SC 2456
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1694
HC-KAR
civil suit for recovery of loan against one Channabasappa
Tadasuru. The accused got marked Ex.D1, certified copy of the
promissory note executed by the said person in favour of the
complainant. The said Channabasappa lodged a complaint
against P.W.1 and a criminal case was registered. Both the loan
transactions have taken place in the year 2014. Further in the
year 2017, the wife of the complainant sold certain land for their
legal necessity. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
accused that all these factors raises doubt regarding the financial
capacity of the complainant to lend money to the accused.
11. If the evidence on record is analyzed, it is clear that
the complainant has not established his financial capacity to lend
a huge loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused. He has admitted
that he is an income tax assessee and the documents relating to
his income tax payment are in his possession. However, he has
not produced it to prove his income during the relevant period.
He has not specified as to what is his earning to show his
financial capacity to lend a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused.
The trial Court has also noticed from the evidence of P.W.1 that
the lands owned by him were affected by drought prior to the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1694
HC-KAR
loan transaction i.e., from 2013 to 2016. Hence, it raised serious
doubt about the transaction as claimed by the complainant.
12. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was given to one
Channabasappa, may be during the same period when the
present transaction took place, however, the suit filed by the
complainant against the said Channabasappa was decreed and
only thereafter, the said Channabasappa got registered a
criminal case against the complainant. He therefore, contended
that the said transaction will not disprove the loan transaction
between the complainant and the accused.
13. The transaction between the complainant and one
Channabasappa, though by itself will not disprove the case of the
complainant, however, the complainant has failed to establish his
financial capacity to advance a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the
accused. P.W.2 was examined on behalf of the complainant. He
is the brother of Anand Mahadevappa Girimallanavar. He has
admitted that the accused and his brother were friends, though
pleaded his ignorance about any transactions between them.
P.W.2 has admitted in the cross-examination that he knows the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1694
HC-KAR
accused and he had contested Panchayath election during 2011,
in which he was defeated by the accused.
14. According to P.W.1, accused came to Shiruru and
requested him to lend Rs.5,00,000/-. In his cross-examination,
he has stated that the accused gave the cheque in Kundagol on
05.05.2015. He has stated that at that time, P.W.2 was also
present. Again, he admitted that in the complaint, he mentioned
that the accused gave the cheque at Benakanahalli. P.W.2 has
not stated that the accused gave the cheque to the complainant
at Kundagol. He has stated cheque was given in his house at
Benakanahalli and the said amount was paid out of the sale of 60
quintal of chilli. However, the complainant himself has not stated
so.
15. From the above evidence on record, a reasonable
doubt arises in the mind of the Court regarding advancement of
loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused and issuance of cheque by
the accused to the complainant towards a legally enforceable
debt. The accused has been able to rebut the presumption. The
trial Court has acquitted the accused based on the material on
record, after assigning reasons. The judgment does not suffer
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1694
HC-KAR
from any illegality or perversity. Accordingly, appeal is
dismissed.
SD/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
RKM
CT:PA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12
