- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5608 CRL.A No. 100118 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100118 OF 2018 BETWEEN: MR. UDAY S/O. LAXMAN MANNAPUR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MUMBAI, PRESENTLY R/O: RAMTEERTA NAGAR, BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR KADANNAVAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KURABARDADDI, LAXMI EXTENSION AREA, OPP: G.R.B.C. COLONY, GOKAK – 591 307. TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 01.03.2018 PASSED IN C.C. NO.2317/2017 BY THE V-JMFC, BELAGAVI, AT BELAGAVI AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881. PASS SUCH ANY OTHER ORDER/ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5608 CRL.A No. 100118 of 2018 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 01.03.2018 passed in C.C.No.2317/2017 by the V-JMFC, Belagavi, whereunder, respondent/accused has been acquitted for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 2. The case of the appellant/complainant in brief is as under: The complainant and the accused were well acquainted with each other. The accused has availed a hand loan of Rs.10,85,000/- from the complainant. For repayment of the said loan, the accused has issued cheque bearing No.000113 dated 06.10.2017 for Rs.10,85,000/- in the name of complainant. The said cheque has been presented by the complainant and it came to be dishonoured with endorsement ‘Account is dormant’ under memo dated 16.10.2017. The complainant got issued legal - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5608 CRL.A No. 100118 of 2018 notice dated 24.10.2017 and it was served on the accused on 26.10.2017. The accused has sent his reply to the said notice. As the accused did not pay the cheque amount, the complainant has filed a private complaint against respondent/accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 3. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and registered a case in C.C.No.2317/2017 against the respondent/accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The plea of the accused has been recorded. The complainant in order to prove his case has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-7. The statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. 4. The learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments on both sides, has formulated the points for consideration and passed the impugned judgment of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5608 CRL.A No. 100118 of 2018 acquittal. The said judgment of acquittal has been challenged by the complainant in this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsels for appellant and respondent. 6. Learned counsel for appellant would contend that the amount borrowed has been paid by the complainant to the account of the accused. The said amount has not been repaid. The complainant has not authorized him to repay the said amount to his account with Muragendra Swami Finance Corporation. Even though, the accused has repaid Rs.10,85,000/- by depositing in the account of Muragendra Swami Finance Corporation, he has not received the said amount since the said finance has been closed. 7. He further submits that the defence taken by the accused in his reply-Ex.P-6 is contrary to the cross- examination of PW-1. The complainant has not authorized the accused to deposit the amount due to his account with - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5608 CRL.A No. 100118 of 2018 Muragendra Swami Finance Corporation. Without considering all these aspects, learned Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondent/accused. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and convict the respondent/accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 8. Learned counsel for respondent would content that PW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted that accused depositing in total Rs.10,85,000/- to the account of the complainant maintained with Muragendra Swami Finance Corporation. The said admission itself establishes the defence taken up by the respondent/accused in his reply notice-Ex.P-6. Considering the said aspect, the learned Magistrate has rightly passed judgment of acquittal. With this, he prayed for dismissing the appeal. 9. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the impugned judgment and trial Court records. 10. Considering grounds urged, the following point arises for consideration: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5608 CRL.A No. 100118 of 2018 i. Whether the trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent/accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act? 11. My answer to the above point is in ‘negative’ for the following reasons. 12. It is the specific case of the appellant/complainant that he had lent Rs.10,85,000/- to the accused and transferred that amount on four different dates to the account of the accused. The accused in his reply-Ex.P-6 has denied he borrowing Rs.10,85,000/-. The accused has setup defence that the complainant was working at Bombay, he transferred totally Rs.10,85,000/- from his account to the account of accused maintained in Corporation Bank with his instructions to transfer the said amount to his account with Muragendra Swami Finance Corporation. PW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted that he transferring Rs.10,85,000/- from his Bank account to the Bank account of the accused. PW-1 has also admitted that accused has transferred in total of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5608 CRL.A No. 100118 of 2018 Rs.10,85,000/- from his account to the account of complainant maintained with Muragendra Swami Finance Corporation. The said aspect itself establish the defence of the respondent/accused that the cheque-Ex.P-1 was issued for security for the said transfer of the amount by the complainant to the account of the accused. Merely, because the complainant did not get the amount of Rs.10,85,000/- from Muragendra Swami Finance Corporation as it is closed, he cannot blame the accused for having transferred Rs.10,85,000/- to his account with Muragendra Swami Finance Corporation. The appellant/complainant has initiated consumer disputes against the Muragendra Swami Finance Corporation for deficiency of service and complaint has been allowed. Considering all these aspects, the learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted the respondent/accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. There are no grounds made out for setting aside the well reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5608 CRL.A No. 100118 of 2018 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE RKM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39