- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17108 CRL.P No. 3301 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3301 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SATHISH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O RAMA POOJARY, R/AT KUCHURU MANE, ARKULA VILLAGE, MERAMAJAL POST - 574 143, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJ.G, ADVOCATE) AND: PRAVEEN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O NARAYANA POOJARY, R/AT SHIVADATH KRIPA, THUPEKALLU, ARKULA VILLAGE, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 143. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. KATTIMANI POOJA MANOHAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO 1. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2022 ON AN APPLICATION I.A.NO.2/2022 BEING FILED UNDER SEC.391, 311 R/W 91 OF CR.PC BEING PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.47/2021 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17108 CRL.P No. 3301 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER The order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru in Crl.Appeal.No.47/2021 is called in question, in this petition. 2. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner/accused who was convicted by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court and during the pendency of the said appeal, filed an application under Section 391, 311 read with 91 of Cr.P.C., to recall PW1 i.e, the complainant for the purpose of further cross-examination and also to direct to issue summons to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kankanady branch, Mangaluru and to produce the statement of account of the complainant for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17108 CRL.P No. 3301 of 2022 the period from 01.10.2017 to 16.02.2022. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order has dismissed the said application with cost. 4. The summoning of the Bank Manager and production of statement of account of the complainant and prayer for further cross-examination of complainant/PW1 is sought on the ground that the petitioner/accused had recently obtained the statement of account from his branch and came to know that the complainant had misused one more cheque bearing No.195312 by filling a huge amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and he found that the said cheque was also misused by the complainant. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the fact of dishonour of 2nd cheque is reflected in the bank statement and the particulars of the account number but not reflected in the statement of the account of the accused and therefore, in order to prove that the complainant had misused one more cheque belonging to the accused, it is relevant to summon the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17108 CRL.P No. 3301 of 2022 bank manager and also to further cross-examine the complainant. 6. The learned Sessions Judge while examining the case and dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein, has observed that there are many entries in the statement of the accused and it neither support his defence nor disprove the case of the complainant and the entries made therein are totally irrelevant and therefore, such statement of account is not required for just decision of the case. Further, the ground urged by the accused that the 2nd cheque was stolen by the respondent is not sufficient to permit him to lead additional evidence and it is not a matter to be considered in the appeal. 7. The learned Sessions Judge having considered the rival submissions of the parties has come to the conclusion that the transactions relating to Cheque No.195312 is totally irrelevant for the present case and therefore, the examination of Bank Manager and directing - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17108 CRL.P No. 3301 of 2022 him to produce the statement of account of the respondent is not at all required. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that cheque No.195311 in respect of which, a complaint was filed by respondent, was taken away by him when the parties were on good terms and he filled the said cheques and presented to the bank. According to him, the 2nd cheque bearing No.195312 was also taken away by the complainant and at the same time, it was presented to the bank and the said cheque also came to be dishonoured. 9. The learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ANSS Rajashekar Vs. Augustus Jeba Anand (Criminal.Appeal.No.95-96/2019) disposed on 18.01.2019, to contend that in the said case the complainant had not mentioned anything about the accused having issued two cheques and non-disclosure of facts pertaining to the earlier cheques and the steps taken if any, could raise to a doubt with regard to the transactions. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17108 CRL.P No. 3301 of 2022 10. In the above case, the complainant failed to establish the source of funds which he alleged to have utilised for disbursal of the loan amount for Rs.15,00,000/- to the accused and during cross- examination he deposed about furnishing two cheques for Rs.5 Lakhs and Rs.10 Lakhs each, which was not stated in the complaint. In the said facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the presumption in favour of the accused was rebutted as the accused was able to raise probable defence which created doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt. 11. In the case on hand, neither in the notice nor in the cross-examination of PW1, it is insisted that the cheques were stolen or taken away by the complainant. According to the petitioner, there was one more cheque belonging to him which was presented by the complainant to the Bank and got dishonored. It is not the case of the complainant or the accused that any complaint was filed in respect of the said cheque. Even accepting that another - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17108 CRL.P No. 3301 of 2022 cheque belonging to the accused was presented to the Bank and it was dishonored, it is not a ground to doubt the transaction in the present case. As rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge, the transaction relating to cheque No.195312 is totally irrelevant for the present case and documents sought to be summoned and examination of the Bank Manager or cross-examination of PW.1- complainant is not required for the just decision of the case. For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed. The observations made in this order are confined to the disposal of this petition. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE PK,SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10