- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32797 CRL.A No. 1746 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1746 OF 2023 BETWEEN: DUSHYANTHRAJA S/O S.B RANGANATH, C/O D.P NATARAJ, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT #71, TYPE 2 QUARTERS, BYRASANDRA CAMPUS, JAYANAGAR, MYSURU-570 014 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJUNATH M.R, ADVOCATE) AND: M.R VENKATESH S/O M. RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, C.A.D.A OFFICE, MYSURU-570 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K.A, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MYSURU IN C.C.NO.847/2016 DATED 31.01.2023 FURTHER BE PLEASED TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32797 CRL.A No. 1746 of 2023 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant/complainant has assailed the judgment passed in C.C.No.847/2016, dated 31.01.2023 by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court') whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the accused/respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act). 2. The abridged facts of the case are that, the complainant and the accused were colleagues and as such, they acquainted with each other. During the first week of March, 2013, the accused availed a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant by way of cheque. The accused promised to repay the said amount within three months, however he failed to repay the amount and finally, he issued a cheque bearing No.013748 dated 06.09.2013 drawn on Axis Bank, Kuvempu Nagar Branch, Mysuru for Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32797 CRL.A No. 1746 of 2023 but the same was returned with an endorsement dated 24.10.2013 as “Account Closed”. The said aspect was brought to the knowledge of the accused by issuing a legal notice dated 30.11.2013. Despite service of notice to the accused, he neither replied the said notice nor repaid the loan amount. As such, the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act before the Trial Court. 3. To prove the case, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any documents on his behalf. 4. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as stated supra. The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal by the complainant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32797 CRL.A No. 1746 of 2023 5. Heard the learned counsel Sri Manjunath M.R., for the appellant/complainant, so also learned counsel Sri Chandrashekara K.A., for the respondent/accused. 6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant is that the Trial Court grossly erred while acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, despite the complainant placing sufficient evidence on record to prove the case. According to the learned counsel, the mandatory requirements provided under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is complied with by the complainant. Further, the accused has not disputed the cheque in question and his signature on it. In such circumstances, the initial presumption favours the complainant which was not rebutted by the accused by placing cogent evidence. 7. He also contended that the accused specifically taken the defence that the cheque-in-question was stolen from his possession by one Srinivasa and he in-turn handed over the same to the complainant, however, the accused has not lodged any complaint to that effect and also failed to examine the said Srinivasa as a witness to prove his defence. These aspects of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32797 CRL.A No. 1746 of 2023 the matter are not properly appreciated by the Trial Court, which has resulted in acquittal of the accused. Thus, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and to convict the accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused contended that the Trial Court after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record passed a well-reasoned judgment, which does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court. He contended that the complainant has totally failed to prove his lending capacity of huge sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused. According to the complainant, he borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from his parents and Rs.50,000/- from his friend namely Peter and rest of the amount was from his savings and advanced the loan amount to the accused, however, he failed to examine his parents or his friend. Further, according to the complainant, the amount was advanced by him by way of cheque as stated in the complaint. But, during the course of his cross-examination, he stated that he advanced the amount by way of cash. As such, there is a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32797 CRL.A No. 1746 of 2023 material contradiction in the evidence in respect of advancing the loan amount itself. He also contended that the complainant has filed a matrimonial case against his wife and the accused in the year 2013. Nevertheless, the accused also filed a criminal case against the complainant in the year 2012 and a warrant was pending against the complainant from the year 2012. In such circumstance, there is no such possibility of lending a huge sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by the complainant to the accused. This aspect is rightly appreciated by the Trial Court and acquitted the accused. As such, interference does not call for in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the evidence available on record, the sole point that arises for my consideration is: “Whether the Trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act?” 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, so also evidence and documents available on record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32797 CRL.A No. 1746 of 2023 11. As could be gathered from records, the accused and the complainant were colleagues and both were acquainted with each other. According to the complainant, the accused approached him for a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in the year 2013 and he advanced the same by way of cheque. Subsequently, the accused failed to repay the same and issued a Ex.P1-cheque for repayment of the same. However, on presentation of the same, returned with an endorsement "Account Closed". The signature of the accused on cheque- Ex.P1 is not seriously disputed by the accused. It is the specific defence of the accused that Ex.P1-cheque was stolen by one Srinivasa from his possession and in-turn, the said Srinivasa handed over the said cheque to the complainant and the complainant presented the same for his unlawful gain and also due to vengeance against the accused. To substantiate the said defence, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that, it is admitted by the complainant in his cross- examination the accused filed a case against him in the year 2012 and a warrant was pending against the complainant. Further, in the year 2013, the complainant filed a matrimonial case against his wife and the accused. In such circumstance, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32797 CRL.A No. 1746 of 2023 there is no such possibility of advancing a huge sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused by the complainant in the year 2013. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the accused, according to the complainant, he advanced the amount by way of cheque in the year 2013; he reiterated the contents of the complaint in his chief examination also. However, during the course of his cross-examination, he stated that he advanced loan amount by way of cash. Further, to prove the lending capacity of the complainant, he stated that, he borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from his parents and Rs.50,000/- from his friend. However, he failed to examine his parents or his friend to prove that he borrowed the said amount from them. Additionally, the complainant also failed to place any other documents to substantiate the aspect that he advanced loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in the year 2013 except Ex.P1-cheque. In such circumstance, the complainant has failed to prove that the accused owing a legally recoverable debt against the complainant. 12. No doubt, initial presumption arises under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act favours the complainant. However, it is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32797 CRL.A No. 1746 of 2023 well settled position of law by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions that initial presumption can be rebutted by placing probable defence. In the instant case, on careful perusal of the evidence available on record, the accused has rebutted the initial presumption by placing probable defence. It is equally settled position of law that the accused need not enter the witness box, if he is able to prove his defence in the cross-examination of the complainant. In such circumstance, in my considered view, the Trial Court has rightly dealt with the matter in detail and passed a well-reasoned judgment, which does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court. In that view of the matter, I answer the point raised above in the “affirmative” and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Appeal No.1746/2023 stands dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5