- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11006 CRL.A No. 100186 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100186 OF 2025 (A) BETWEEN: BELLAD ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED, A PRIVATE COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: UNKAL CROSS, HUBBALLI-580 031, DIST. DHARWAD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHESH BELLAD, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. GOURIKRUPA, NEAR AMBEDKAR HOSTEL, MARATHA COLONY ROAD, DHARWAD-580 008. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. MUBEEN K. MANIYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: NIRANJANAYYA HIREMATH, PROPRIETOR, SHRI NIRANJAN ROAD LINES, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, AT: ANCHATGERI LAYOUT, P.B. ROAD, HUBBALLI-580 024, DIST. DHARWAD. … RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 419(4) OF BNSS ACT), PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 04.01.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF JMFC-II, HUBBALLI IN C.C.NO.769/2019 AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT, 1881 AND DIRECT THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT TO PAY THE BALANCE/DIFFERENCE AMOUNT TO THE COMPLAINANT/APPELLANT ALONG WITH FINE AND LEGAL EXPENSES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11006 CRL.A No. 100186 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. This appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 419(4) of the BNSS, 2023 is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.01.2025 passed by the Court of the JMFC-II, Hubballi in C.C. No.769 of 2019, wherein the respondent has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The appellant had filed a private complaint before the Court of JMFC-II, Hubballi against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is the case of the complainant that the respondent had visited the complainant's showroom for purchase of a goods vehicle and showed interest to purchase LPT 3118 TC goods vehicle and thereafter had given a cheque bearing - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11006 CRL.A No. 100186 of 2025 No.001050, dated 04.05.2019 for a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- during the first week of May-2019. The complainant thereafter sold the aforesaid vehicle to the respondent and handed over possession of the same and at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle, the respondent promised to pay the balance amount within fortnight. In spite of repeated reminders, the respondent had not paid the amount and thereafter he had issued the cheque for payment of balance amount towards the vehicle purchased. When the said cheque dated 04.05.2019 was presented for realisation on 07.05.2019, the same was dishonoured for the reason “funds insufficient”. Subsequently, the respondent on the request of the complainant issued a fresh cheque bearing No.001062 dated 11.06.2019, which was again dishonoured by the drawee bank for “insufficient funds”. 4. The complainant thereafter got issued a legal notice dated 20.06.2019, which was served on the respondent on 25.06.2019 and since the amount covered - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11006 CRL.A No. 100186 of 2025 under the cheque in question was not repaid in spite of service of notice, the complainant had initiated proceedings against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The respondent who had entered appearance before the trial Court had claimed to be tried. Therefore, to substantiate its case, the complainant had examined its Manager as PW1 and had got marked nine documents as Exhibits P1 to P9. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was led nor was any document got marked. The trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, vide the impugned judgment and order has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is under these circumstances, the complainant is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant / complainant having reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum submit that, before the trial Court, the complainant had failed to produce necessary documents to prove the transaction. He has filed I.A. No.2 of 2025 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11006 CRL.A No. 100186 of 2025 producing copy of the letter, dated 25.04.2019 under which the cheque in question has been issued. He submits that respondent has failed to rebut the presumption that arises against him under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in acquitting him. 6. It is the case of the complainant / appellant that respondent had issued the cheque bearing No.101062, Exhibit P2, dated 11.06.2019, towards discharge of the legally recoverable debt. According to the appellant, the respondent had purchased a vehicle from his showroom and towards the balance amount of the vehicle purchased, he had issued the cheque in question. The appellant has not produced even a scrap of paper before the trial Court to demonstrate that respondent had purchased a vehicle from his showroom. The particulars of the payment made by the respondent towards the purchase of the vehicle, the total cost of the vehicle purchased and the particulars of the delivery of the said vehicle have not been made available to the trial Court by the appellant. Exhibit P9 is a copy of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11006 CRL.A No. 100186 of 2025 invoice and the same is not sufficient to show that the vehicle was purchased by the respondent from the appellant. As per Exhibit P9, the total cost of the vehicle with applicable tax amounts to Rs.25,57,000/-. The appellant has not produced any material to show that the respondent had paid the remaining amount of the aforesaid amount of Rs.25,57,000/-, except the balance amount of Rs.2,80,000/- as contended by it. There is no material to show that the respondent had purchased the vehicle from the appellant and the same was delivered to the respondent by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant has failed to prove its transaction with the respondent, which is the basic foundational fact, in the present case. 7. It is trite that if the basic foundational facts are not proved, no presumption can be raised against the accused. The appellant has now produced a letter dated 25.04.2019 along with I.A. No.2, an application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to permit the appellant to produce the additional documents. In the said - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11006 CRL.A No. 100186 of 2025 letter, it is mentioned that the cheque bearing No.001050 dated 04.05.2019 for a sum of Rs.2,80,000 was issued by the respondent to the appellant under the aforesaid letter dated 25.04.2019. In the complaint as well as in the affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief by PW1, it is categorically stated that the cheuqe bearing No.001050, dated 04.05.2019 was issued by the respondent to the appellant during the first week of May-2019. Therefore, the letter dated 25.04.2019, which is now produced as additional document, is contrary to the pleadings and deposition found in the present case. It is trite that, in normal circumstance, this Court cannot interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, unless it is found that the said judgment and order of acquittal is perverse or has been passed without taking into consideration the material evidence available on record. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11006 CRL.A No. 100186 of 2025 ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. (ii) Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE VNP / CT: BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 93