- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:677 CRL.A No. 220 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 220 OF 2019 BETWEEN: HEMALATHA NIRANJAN W/O NIRANJAN Y C AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT No.106, TIRUMALA ELTIE 80 FEET ROAD, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE AREKERE, BTM 6TH STAGE BENGALURU – 560 076. …APPELLANT (BY SRI LAKSHMIKANTH K, ADVOCATE) AND: M A SHANMUKA S/O LATE APPAJAPPA MADIHALLI VILLAGE, MOKALI POST ARUKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 216. AND ALSO WORKING AT M.A.SHANMUKHA (POLITICAL SCIENCE LECTURE) GOVERNMENT COLLEGE BACHENAHATTI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT- 562 120. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAVINSON M, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:677 CRL.A No. 220 of 2019 THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ORDER DATED 11.12.2018, PASSED BY THE XIX A.C.M.M., AT BANGALORE IN C.C.No.16423/2017, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I ACT AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 11.12.2018 passed in C.C.No.16423/2017 by the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, whereunder the respondent -accused has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I. Act” for brevity). 2. The brief facts of complainant’s case is that the respondent –accused approached the complainant for hand loan and she lent money of Rs.4,00,000/- to accused on 04.01.2015. The accused in order to discharge the said - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:677 CRL.A No. 220 of 2019 loan has issued cheque bearing No.709159 dated 04.02.2017 for sum of Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Tirumale, Magadi Taluk in favour of complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment and the said cheque came to be returned by Bank with endorsement “Stale”. Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 18.05.2017 and same came to be returned with shara that “not claimed” and notice sent to another address has been returned as “the accused out of station”. Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint. 3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance and registered case against the respondent –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act in C.C.No.16423/2017. The plea came to be recorded. The complainant has examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P13. The statement of accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The respondent –accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.D1 and D2. Learned Magistrate - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:677 CRL.A No. 220 of 2019 after hearing on both sides has formulated points for consideration and passed impugned judgment of acquittal. The said judgment of acquittal has been challenged in this appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the complainant has presented the cheque earlier for two times and it came to be dishounoured. He submits that when cheque came to be presented at third time it returned with reason “Stale”. He submits that the said endorsement amounts to dishonour of cheque and attracts offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act. With this, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that cheque has been dishonoured for reason “Stale” and itself indicate that the cheque has not been presented within the period of its validity. The cheque has not been dishonoured for want of funds and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:677 CRL.A No. 220 of 2019 attracted. One of the condition for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is that cheque should be presented to the Bank for encashment within the period of its validity. Considering the said aspect, learned Magistrate has rightly passed impugned judgment of acquittal. With this, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Having heard learned counsels, the point arises for my consideration is “Whether learned Magistrate has erred in passing the judgment of acquittal of respondent –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.”? 8. My answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons. The cheque is at Ex.P1 and it is dated 04.02.2017. The complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment and the said cheque came to be returned under memo dated 06.05.2017 (Ex.P2) by HDFC Bank with reason “Stale”. The said endorsement itself indicates - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:677 CRL.A No. 220 of 2019 that the cheque has not been presented for encashment within the period of its validity. One of the conditions for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is that the cheque should be present to the Bank within the period of its validity. In the case on hand the cheque has not been presented to the Bank within a period of its validity and therefore, it has been returned with reason “Stale”. The said cheque has not been dishonoured for want of funds. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that earlier the complainant has presented the cheque for two times and it came to be dishonoured for want of funds cannot be accepted as cheque can be presented any number of times till its validity. The complainant has presented the cheque before the Bank after its validity and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is not attracted. Considering the said aspect, learned Magistrate has rightly held that offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act is not attracted and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:677 CRL.A No. 220 of 2019 10. There are no reasons to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by learned Magistrate. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10