- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18492 CRL.A No. 1276 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1276 OF 2019 (A) BETWEEN: S. J. JAGAN MOHAN S/O SRI JANARDHANAN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, 2ND MAIN ROAD, SRIPUROAM, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 020. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. THEJASWINI G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C G GOPALASWAMY.,ADVOCATES) AND: K. PRASHANTH S/O SRI.G.R.KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.66, GRK PARADISE HOUSE, 3RD CROSS, BASAVA SAMITHI LAYOUT, NEAR NANJAPPA CIRCLE, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 097. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.04.2019, PASSED BY THE LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.277/2018 AND RESTORE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 01.02.2018 IN C.C.NO.23106/2016 IN THE COURT OF XV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALUR CITY AND SENTENCE Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18492 CRL.A No. 1276 of 2019 THE RESPONDENT ACCORDINGLY, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the complainant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.04.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.277/2018 on the file of LXVI Additional City City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, by which the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 374 of Cr.P.C has been allowed, setting aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 01.02.2018 passed in CC No.23106 of 2016 on the file of XV Additional CMM, Bengaluru. 2. Case of the complainant/appellant is that, accused/respondent being his acquaintance had promised and assured of securing admission of his son in the Bishop Cotton High School, Bengaluru. Accordingly, accused /respondent requested the complainant/appellant to lend loan of ₹2,50,000/- and complainant/appellant paid to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18492 CRL.A No. 1276 of 2019 accused/respondent ₹1,50,000/- on 18.11.2015, ₹50,000/- on 14.04.2016 and remaining sum of ₹50,000/- on 15.04.2016 through NEFT process. In repayment of the said amount, accused/respondent had issued a cheque dated 07.06.2016 drawn on Corporation Bank, Vidyaranyapura Branch, Bengaluru. On presentation of the same for encashment, returned with an endorsement "Payment stopped by the Drawer" resulting in complainant/appellant issuing a legal notice, which came to be returned with an endorsement 'Intimation Delivered' on 08.08.2016 and 09.08.2016. Since accused/respondent failed to pay the amount as demanded, a complaint came to be filed by the complainant in PCR No.9101 of 2016. Sworn statement of the complainant/appellant was recorded. On receipt of summons, accused/respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. Complainant/appellant examined himself as PW.1 and produced seven documents marked as Exhibit P.1 to Exhibit P.7. No evidence was led on behalf of the accused/respondent. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18492 CRL.A No. 1276 of 2019 4. Trial Court after hearing the arguments and perusing the material on record, framed the following points for its consideration : "1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused towards the discharge of legally enforceable debt has issued the cheque for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and on its presentation for encashment purpose it was dishonoured with an endorsement for the reason "Payment Stopped by Drawer" and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act, 1881 ? 2. What order ?" 5. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and consequently convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Being aggrieved, accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.277/2026. 6. The first Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: "1. Whether the impugned Judgment is illegal arbitrary and requires interference by this Court? 2. What Order ?" - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18492 CRL.A No. 1276 of 2019 On re-appreciation of the material on record, the first appellate Court allowed the said appeal, setting aside the order dated 01.02.2018 passed by the XV ACMM, Bengaluru in C.C.No.23106/2016. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant/appellant is before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the complainant/appellant, reiterating the grounds in the memorandum of appeal, submitted that the first appellate court erred in allowing the appeal considering the transaction as a void transaction. That the transaction was not for securing any illegal gain but to facilitate admission of the child of the complainant/appellant in a School as the appellant had come from outside and therefore, the transaction cannot be held as a void transaction resulting in rejection of the complaint of the appellant. She submits that the ingredients of provisions of Section 138 and 139 of the N.I.Act have been proved and established by the complainant/appellant. The accused/respondent not having rebutted the presumption which is available to the complainant/appellant, inference has to be drawn against the accused/respondent which was rightly done by the trial Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18492 CRL.A No. 1276 of 2019 and the Appellate Court ought not to have interfered with the same and hence, seeks for interference in this appeal. 8. Heard and perused the records. 9. Paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C by the complainant/appellant in PCR No.9101/2016 reads as under : 2. The Complainant submits that the Accused was introduced by a common friend Mrs.Preethu, W/o.Mr.Pandit who is a known acquaintance in connection with securing an admission to the Complainant's son at the "Bishop Cotton's High School", Bangalore and based on the assurance of the Accused of securing the admission, the Accused had requested the Complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) and accordingly the Complainant has paid the said amount in the following manner which was duly acknowledge by the Accused. a. Amount transferred under NEFT from the account of the Complainant at ICICI Bank, Kumarapark West Branch, Bangalore to the Accused account At Corporation Bank, Vidyaranyapura Branch, Bangalore on 18.11.2015 Rs.1,50,000/- b. Amount transferred under NEFT from the account of the Complainant at ICICI Bank, Kumarapark West Branch, Bangalore to Accused account At Corporation Bank, Vidyaranyapura Branch, Bangalore on 14.04.2016 Rs.50,000/- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18492 CRL.A No. 1276 of 2019 c. Amount transferred under NEFT from the account of the Complainant at ICICI Bank, Kumarapark West Branch, Bangalore to Accused account At Corporation Bank, Vidyaranyapura Branch, Bangalore on 15.04.2016 Rs.50,000/- ---------------- TOTAL Rs.2,50,000/- ----------------- 3. The Complainant submits that the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) has been duly credited to the account of the Accused and having received the said amount, the Accused has failed and neglected to fulfill his promise and expressed the inability to discharge the obligations. The Complainant submits that the Accused was evading to refund the said amount and after much persuasion through Mrs.Preethu, who had introduced the Accused to the Complainant the Accused had issued the following cheque towards the discharge of the debt/liability. a. Cheque dated 07.06.2016, No.510549 drawn on Corporation Bank, Vidyaranyapura Branch, Bangalore Rs.2,50,000/- The Copy of the Cheque is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-A. 10. Perusal of the aforesaid content makes it very clear that the complainant had apparently paid the said amount for the alleged purpose of securing admission of his child in Bishop - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18492 CRL.A No. 1276 of 2019 Cotton High School, Bengaluru. The allegation of failure of promise to secure the said admission had led to the dispute which constrained the complainant/appellant to demand for refund of the amount paid. There is nothing on record to show that accused/respondent was either a representative or an employee of the School or he held any authority to provide admission. Therefore, the question of paying amount to a third party, who is unconnected with the school, for the purpose of securing admission cannot be accepted. Appropriate to refer Section 13 of Right to Education Act which prohibits any school or person while admitting child to collect any capitation fee which is made an offence punishable with fine which may extent 10 times of capitation fee. Even at this count any amount sought to be pad by appellant to secure admission of child cannot be countenanced. 11. The consideration amount, as rightly taken note of by the first Appellate court, is clearly not for legal purpose. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that the debt was legally recoverable, which has been rightly rejected by the first Appellate Court, cannot be found fault with. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18492 CRL.A No. 1276 of 2019 The Appeal fails and the same is rejected. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2