[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
M Raju vs Gopalakrishna K S on 9 May, 2025
KABC0A0034742023
IN THE COURT OF LXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (CCH.74)
PRESENT:
Smt. Anitha N.P., B.A.L., L.L.M.,
LXXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 09th day of May 2025.
Crl. Appeal No.25252/2023
Appellant/
Accused: 1. Sri. M Raju
Aged about 60 years,
S/o: Manikyam,
R/at No.41, 43/2, 2nd Main,
Opp. To Panchamukhi Ganapathi
Temple, Panchamukhi Layout, Next To
Sri Saibaba Layout, Land Army Road,
Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru.
2. M/S Ganesh Motor
Rep. By Its Prop. M Raju
TVS Authorised Service Centre,
Next To Sri Adiparashakthi Temple,
3rd Main, 19th Cross, Hoysalanagara
Bengaluru 560016.
(Rep by Sri.K. Chennabase Gowda - Adv.)
V/S
Respondent/
Complainant: Sri. Gopalakrishna K. S.,
Aged about 64 years,
2
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
S/o: K.V.Seenappa,
R/at No.68, Lakshmaiah Reddy Cross,
3rd Main, HRBR 3rd Phase,
Kacharkanahalli,
Bengaluru 560084.
(Rep by Sri.M. V.Narayana Swamy - Adv.)
JUDGMENT
This is an Appeal filed by Accused under Section
374 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the Judgment dated
02.08.2023 passed in C.C. No.53595/2019 on the file of
XXXIV A.C.M.M., Bengaluru, convicting him for an
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act [hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act‘, for
brevity] and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.15,61,040/-
and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year. Out of the fine amount, a
sum of Rs.15,56,040/ is directed to be paid to the
respondent/complainant as compensation and remaining
Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be remitted towards State
expenses.
3
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
2. The parties are referred to their original ranking
as referred in trial court for convenience sake. The
Appellant is the Accused and Respondent is the
Complainant before the trial court.
3. Brief facts of the complainant before the trial
court is as under:-
The complainant and accused are known to each
other. Accused No.01 is proprietor of Accused No.02, in
the month of November-2014 accused approached the
complainant and sought loan of Rs.12,35,000/- for his
business and promised to repay the amount within 06
months. Considering the request the complainant lent
Rs.12,35,000/- through cheque dated:04.12.2014. The
accused not repaid the amount as promised and when
the complainant demanded for amount the accused
sought time and complainant granted two years time. The
accused agreed to repay the loan on or before 12.07.2017
and executed an undertaking in this regard. However
again the accused failed to keep up his promise. When
4
Crl.A. No.25252/2023the complainant again asked for payment of loan the
accused and his family members abused him in filthy
words and also threatened him with dire consequence
and tried to assault him. Hence, the complainant lodged
complaint before police on 23.03.2018. Before the police
the accused admitted the loan and stated that, he will
clear loan on or before 30.06.2018. Thereafter, a
mediation was held before the well wisher in the month of
November – 2018 wherein the accused agreed to pay the
amount by December – 2018 and on 21.01.2019 the
accused issued cheque dated:21.01.2019 for a sum of
Rs.12,35,000/-. The complainant presented the said
cheque for encasement before his banker. The same
returned unpaid for the reason “insufficient funds”. The
complainant then issued legal notice on 06.02.2019 to
the accused and the same was served on accused No.01
and 02 on 07.02.2019 and 18.02.2019 respectively.
However the accused not paid the amount in the cheque.
5
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
Hence, the Complainant filed Complaint before the
XXXIV A.C.M.M., Bengaluru,, in C.C.No.53595/2019.
4. After taking cognizance of the complaint,
summons has been issued to the Accused. Responding to
the summons, he appeared before the Trial Court,
enlarged on bail, plea was recorded, Accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. That to prove the case of the Complainant, the
complainant himself got examined as PW.1, in his
affidavit filed in the form of Examination in Chief he has
reiterated the averments of the complaint. In support of
his case, he has relied on the documents marked as
Ex.P1 to Ex.P.18.
6. Thereafter, statement of Accused u/s 313 of
Cr.P.C., has been recorded and the accused No.1 has got
examined himself as DW.1 and got marked 9 documents
as per Ex.D1 to 9.
7. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court
passed the impugned judgment and order dated
6
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
02.08.2023 convicting the Accused. That highly aggrieved
with the impugned judgment and order, the Accused has
filed present appeal on the following grounds:
i. The impugned judgment is illegal, arbitrary,
against to the evidence on record. The
accused is not liable to pay the cheque
amount as there is no legally recoverable
debt.
ii. The accused has paid the amount as agreed
in the settlement arrived at police station.
However, the Learned Magistrate not
considered the plea of the accused and
also not considered that the accused
rebutted the presumption available in
favour of complainant.
iii. The complainant admits that he has not
taken any documents at the time of
lending amount as a security. No prudent
man will lend such huge amount without
taking any security. PW.01 further deposed
that, on 21.01.2019 the cheque in
question was given to the complainant by
some one not the accused. Hence, the
7
Crl.A. No.25252/2023accused never issued cheque to the
complainant. The complainant also
deposed that he has not done any financial
business with accused since 2014 and the
Learned Trial Court not considered said
vital admissions.
iv. The complainant also admitted that on
08.06.2018 he received Rs.1,60,000/- from
the accused by cheque and on 09.01.2015
accused paid Rs.1,25,000/- and on
05.02.2015 he paid Rs.70,000/- and the
same was acknowledged by the
complainant. However he deposed that it
was not in respect of the present
transaction. However, no documents to
show the previous transaction is produced.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment and
order of conviction is liable to be set aside
by the intervention of this Court. Hence
prayed for allowing the appeal.
8. After service of notice, the Respondent appeared
through his counsel. Records secured from trial court.
8
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
9. Heard both sides. Perused the entire Trial Court
records, including the impugned judgment.
10. Upon hearing, the following points arise for
determination:-
1. Does the Appellant proves that the
cheque in question was not issued to
complainant towards any legally
enforceable debt?
2. Whether the judgment of conviction
passed by the Trial Court calls for
interference by the hands of this
court?
3. What Order?
11. My findings to above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: In the Negative
Point No.3: As per the final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
12. POINT No.1: It is the specific case of the
Complainant that accused is known to him and for the
purpose of his business the accused sought loan of
Rs.12,35,000/- and assured to repay the amount within
06 months. The complainant lent Rs.12,35,000/-
through cheque on 04.12.2014. The accused not repaid
9
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
the amount as agreed and when the complainant
demanded for repayment the accused sought 2 years
time as he suffered loss and executed undertaking to
repay the loan on or before 12.07.2017. However, the
accused not paid the loan amount and when the
complainant demanded for repayment the accused and
his family members abused him in filthy words and tried
to assault him. A complaint is lodged in this regard on
23.03.2018. Before the police the accused admitted his
liability and stated that he will clear the loan on or
before 30.06.2018. In the mediation held before the well
wishers the accused admitting his liability, issued cheque
for a sum of Rs.12,35,000/-. When the complainant
presented the said cheque for encasement the same
returned as unpaid for the reasons funds insufficient on
22.01.2019. The complainant issued legal notice on
06.02.2019 to both addresses and the same was served
on accused. Inspite of service of notice the accused not
repaid the cheque amount.
10
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
13. Before the trial court the complainant so as to
prove his case got examined himself as PW.1 and he has
produced 18 documents as per Ex.P.1 to 18. Ex.P.1 is the
chequ, Ex.P.2 is the bank endorsement, Ex.P.3 is copy of
legal notice, Ex.P.4 is postal receipt, Ex.P.5 and 06 are
postal tracks, Ex.P.7 is bank passbook, Ex.P.08 is the
acknowledgment issued by Parrappana Agrahara Police
Station, Ex.P.9 to 14 are bank passbooks, Ex.P.15 is
vakalath, Ex.P.16 and 17 are visiting cards, Ex.P.18 is
the certified copy of plaint in OS. No.2819/2021.
14. The accused so as to prove his defence
examined the accused No.1 M. Raju as DW.1 and he has
produced 09 documents as per Ex.D.1 to 9. Ex.D.01 is
the Adhar Card of the accused, Ex.D.2 is the letter given
by TVS Motor company, Ex.D.3 is Vat Registration
certificate, Ex.D.4 is copy of sale deed dated:12.12.2012,
Ex.D.5 and 6 are electricity bills, Ex.D.07 is bank
statement of wife of accused, Ex.D.08 and 09 are bank
statements.
11
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
15. On perusal of the evidence of DW.01/Accused,
this accused in his chief examination affidavit deposed
that, he has not given Ex.P.01 cheque to the
complainant, the complainant used to come to his
business premises as a friend and he used to keep signed
cheques in his office for the purpose of payment for
electricity bills and other business purposes. The
complainant was aware of these facts and when the
complainant in such an occasion when came to the office
of the accused has stolen one signed cheque and has
filed this false complaint. On perusal of the above ocular
evidence of accused the cheque in question is pertains to
the account of the accused and the signature on the
cheque is that of accused. The accused not denied the
cheque and his signature on the cheque. Hence, under
the circumstances there is an initial presumption in
favour of the Complainant under Section 139 & 118 of
Negotiable Instrument Act and the burden is on the
Accused to rebut the said presumption by taking
12
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
appropriate defense on the principles of preponderance of
probabilities.
16. At this stage, it is necessary to refer a ruling of
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2019 (3) KCCR 2473
(SC) (Basalingappa V/s Mudibasappa). The Hon’ble Apex
Court while considering several earlier rulings on the
offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act and also on the presumption
U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act, at Para 23 was pleased to
observe as follows:
23. We having noticed the ratio laid down by
this Court in above cases on Sections 118(a) and
139, we now summarise the principles enumerated
by this Court in following manner:-
(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted
Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that
the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other
liability.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a
rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the
accused to raise the probable defence. The standard
of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of
preponderance of probabilities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the
accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused
can also rely on the materials submitted by the
Complainant in order to raise a probable defence.
Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be
drawn not only from the materials brought on record
by the parties but also by reference to the
circumstances upon which they rely.
13
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to
come in the witness box in support of his defence,
Sec.139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a
persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in
the witness box to support his defence.
17. keeping in mind the broad principles laid down
in the above decision if the defence of the accused is
looked into he has taken the defence that there is no
legally enforceable debt between the accused and
complainant, the cheque was not issued by him to the
complainant, there is no transaction between him and
complainant. The accused also taken defence that
complainant used to come to his business premises as a
friend and the accused used keep signed cheques in his
office for payment of electricity bills and other business
purposes. The complainant who was aware of these facts
on one such occasion had stolen one signed cheque from
his office and filed this false complaint. There is no
legally recoverable debt or liability. He has paid the
amount when the matter was settled at police station.
14
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
18. In this regard, it is necessary to go through the
evidence of DW.1. In the chief examination the accused
deposed that, he has paid Rs.1,50,000/- at the time of
complainant’s sister’s funeral expenses, he paid Rs.3
Laksh by way of cash to the son-in-law of complainant.
Before the Padmanabha Nagar Police Station this
complainant lodged a complaint against him and there he
agreed for final settlement of payment of Rs.6 Lakhs.
Thereafter his son paid Rs.3,25,000/- by way of cash and
balance payment was made by way of cheques. The
complainant received the above amount and further
demanded for additional interest. When the accused
refused to pay said additional interest, the present
complaint is filed.
19. During the course of cross examination accused
deposed that, he is residing at Door No.26/02,
Lakshmaiah Reddy Road, Kacharakanahalli. His son and
daughter are residing separately. His daughter is residing
15
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
at : Chandra Layout and his one son is residing at :
Madiwala and another son is residing at : Electronic City.
20. DW.1 further deposed that, the address shown
in vakalath marked as Ex.P.15 is given by him only to
his advocate and the said address is given as per the
address shown in his Adhar Card. He admitted Ex.P.16
and 17 which are visiting cards stating that they are his
visiting cards and the address shown in the said visiting
cards are correct. He admits that, Ex.P.1 cheque is
pertains to Ganesh Motors. He further admits that
through cheque he has received Rs.12,35,000/- from the
complainant for the improvement of Ganesh Motors. He
further admits that, as per Ex.P.7 on 04.12.2014 he
received the said amount.
21. This DW.1 in his further cross examination
deposed that he maintained the account of accused No.2
i.e., Ganesh Motors till 2017, he cannot produced the
bank statement as he closed the said company in the
year 2017 and though he closed company the bank
16
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
account was not closed. He admits that, he has taken OD
facility on the said account and he do not know whether
said account is still operative. He also admits that before
the Parappana Agrahara Police Station complainant has
lodged complaint against him. He further admits that his
son has not paid any amount to the complainant. He has
no documents to show that he paid Rs.1,50,000/- for
the funeral expenses of the complainant’s sister.
22. DW.1 further admits that, he received amount
from the complainant in the year 2014 by way of cheque.
He has no documents to show that on 07.01.2016 he
paid Rs.3 Lakhs to the complainant.
23. This DW.1 further deposed that, he paid
Rs.70,000/- per month to the complainant towards
interest and he has no documents for the same.
24. In the case on hand the accused not disputed
the receiving of Rs.12,35,000/- from the complainant in
the year 2014. However, according to this accused he has
paid the amount as agreed in the settlement held at
17
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
police station. When the accused admits the receipts of
payment of Rs.12,35,000/- and when he comes up with
defence that, he has repaid the amount to the
complainant the burden lies on the accused to show the
said repayment. It is the contention of the accused that,
he has paid Rs.1,50,000/- at the time of funeral of
complainant’s sister and he has paid Rs.70,000/- every
month to the complainant towards interest and he paid
Rs.1 Lakhs by way of cash and a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs by
way of cash to the complainant’s son in law, but no piece
of documents is produced in this regard. Even on perusal
of cross examination of PW.1 he pleaded ignorance that
the accused transferred Rs.70,000/- on 07.02.2017 to
the wife of complainant. He deposed that he has to verify
whether accused has transferred Rs.35,000/- on
18.12.2015, Rs.70,000/- on 05.02.2015, Rs.1 Lakhs on
08.01.2016 to his account. According to complainant the
above are all not in respect of the present transactions
and he do not know whether a sum of Rs.35,000/- was
18
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
transferred to him on 11.06.2015, sum of Rs.40,000/- on
30.08.2018, sum of Rs.1,60,000/- on 23.05.2018. He
denied that all the above payments are in respect of loan
of the accused.
25. It is pertinent to note that, the accused has
suggested that, before the police the matter was settled
for Rs.6,25,000/- and the accused stating that he can
only pay the principal amount has paid Rs.1,60,000/- to
the complainant. However, the complainant deposed that
in respect of the present transaction no amount is paid
by the accused.
26. As admitted by the accused himself he has
received Rs.12,35,000/- from this complainant on
04.12.2014, to show that he paid amount to the
complainant no documents is produced by the accused.
The documents marked at Ex.D.7 is pertains to the
person by name Saraswathi and the said account extract
does not show who is said Saraswathi and how she is
related to this accused. To show that amount of
19
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
Rs.1,60,000/- was transferred to the account of
complainant the accused produced the said account
extract. However the burden is on the accused to
establish that the said amount is in respect of Ex.P.1
cheque transaction and it is to be established by the
accused. However, nothing is elicited from the mouth of
PW.1 to show that the said payment is towards the
Ex.P.1 cheque.
27. The accused also relied on Ex.D.8 and 9 which
are account statement for the period 01.04.2015 to
30.04.2015 and 01.05.2015 to 31.08.2016 of Sri. Ganesh
Motor Proprietor by M. Raju. The said account extract
does not disclose any payment to the complainant. It is
the arguments of the accused that a sum of Rs.70,000/-
was paid to One Kartheesh. G. on 07.04.2015 and a sum
of Rs.35,000/- was paid on 11.06.2015. It is for the
accused to established that who is said Kartheesh and if
the said Kartheesh is son of the complainant why the
payment was made to said persons. Under Ex.D.7 the
20
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
person who made the payment i.e., Mrs. Saraswathi is
not the person who received amount from this
complainant. The payment made under Ex.D.8 and 9 is
to a person by name Kartheesh who is not the payee
under Ex.P.1. Hence, the arguments of the accused that,
he paid amount to the complainant in respect of Ex.P.1
cannot be accepted. The payment what are all stated by
the accused is not in respect of Ex.P.1. If the said alleged
payment are made to the complainant in respect of
transaction of Ex.P.1 then nothing prevented this
accused to get necessary acknowledgment in this regard
from the complainant. If the payment was in respect of
Ex.P.1 then the accused could have intimated the same
in writing to the complainant and could have kept
necessary endorsement in this regard. However, the
accused has not done so.
28. The one more defence of the accused is that the
alleged loan is time barred. However, on perusal of the
indemnity bond dated 14.07.2015 executed by this
21
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
accused in favour of this complainant which is attached
to Ex.P8 goes to show that the accused as he suffered
loss in his business could not repay the loan and sought
2 years time from the date of said indemnity bond to
repay the loan of Rs.12,35,000/-. The accused
accordingly, executed said indemnity bond accepting his
liability of repayment of loan on 14.07.2015. Accordingly
a fresh contract for repayment of loan was entered into
between the complainant and accused.
29. At this stage it is necessary to go through the
Sec.25 of Indian Contract Act:-
Agreement without consideration,
void, unless it is in writing and registered,
or is a promise to compensate for
something done, or is a promise to pay a
debt barred by limitation law.
An agreement made without consideration is void,
unless
(1) it is expressed in writing and registered under
the law for the time being in force for the
registration of 1[documents], and is made on
account of natural love and affection between
parties standing in a near relation to each other ;
or unless
22
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
(2) it is a promise to compensate, wholly or in part,
a person who has already voluntarily done
something for the promisor, or something which
the promisor was legally compellable to do; or
unless;
(3) it is a promise, made in writing and signed by
the person to be charged therewith, or by his agent
generally or specially authorized in that behalf, to
pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor
might have enforced payment but for the law for
the limitation of suits.
30. As could be seen from Ex.P8 indemnity bond the
accused accepting his liability executed the said
document in favour of the complainant and thereby he
acknowledged his liability that he is due for a sum of
Rs.12,35,000/-. Hence, a fresh contract is executed
between accused and complainant and it is a new
contract as per Sec.25(3) of Indian Contract Act and the
Limitation has to be counted from after 2 years of the
duration stated in said indemnity bond. Hence, the
defence of the accused that the debt is time barred is not
acceptable.
31. It is the defence of the accused that the
complainant has stolen Ex.P1 chque from his office.
23
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
However, no complaint as such is lodged by this accused
as against this complainant alleging the offence of theft.
Hence, the said defence of the accused shows that
accused as an after thought has taken said defence and
failed to prove the same.
32. It is the one more ground of defence of the
accused that the notice issued by the complainant as per
Ex.P3 is not served on him. On perusal of the ocular
evidence of DW.1 he deposed that he is son of late
T.Manikam and his address is No.26/2 Lakshmayya
Reddy Road, Kacharakanahalli. However, he admits his
address shown in Ex.P15 vakalath. On perusal of Ex.P15
the same is vakalath given by this accused to his counsel
in C.C.No.53595/2019. On perusal of cross-examination
of Dw.1 he deposed that he has given his address in his
vakalath to his counsel. The address of the accused
shown in Ex.P15 is No.41, 43/2, 2 nd main, opposite to
Panchamukhi Ganapathi Temple, Panchamukhi Layout,
Next to Sri Sai Baba Layout, Land Army Road, Parappana
24
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
Agrahara, Bengaluru. That apart he also admits Ex.P16
& 17 and the address shown in the said Ex.P16 & 17
visiting cards. He further admits his address in Ex.P18
which is plaint in O.S.No.2819/2021 wherein the address
of this accused No.1 is shown as No.57, Reddy Layout,
Kacharakanahalli, St.Thomas Town Post, Bengaluru and
also at No.40, 41, 3 rd main road, Panchamukhi Layout,
Parappana Agrahara. This DW.1 got marked his Aadhar
as per Ex.D1 wherein his address is shown as 26/2,
Lakshmayya Reddy Road, Kacharakanahalli Road. In his
cross-examination of Dw.1 deposed the at he purchased
house at Sait Palya in the year 2013 and he is residing
there since 2017. He has not changed the said address
but as per the address shown in Aadhar he has given
said address in this case.
33. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P18 is the copy of
plaint in O.S.No.2819/2021 which is filed by this
accused as against persons by name Gowramma and 2
others wherein he has shown his address at No.40, 41,
25
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
3rd main road, Panchamukhi layout, Parappana Agrahara
and even in the versifying affidavit of said plaint he sated
the very same address. On going through the Ex.P3 the
complainant issued notice to the address of this accused
at Panchamukhi layout only. When the notice is
addressed to the very same address shown in the Ex.P15
vakalath and address of plaint cause title in Ex.P18 it is
to be held that the complainant has addressed notice to
the correct address of the accused and this accused with
malafide intention so as to evade service has given
different address in his Aadhar card. The notice Ex.P3 as
could be seen from Ex.P5 & 6 is duly served on the
addressee. The accused inspite of receiving notice has not
complied the terms of notice and paid the amount of
cheque. The accused failed to prove that he has paid the
amount which he borrowed from the complainant and
the accused failed to prove that there is no legally
enforceable debt or liability. The accused having issued
cheque as per Ex.P1 to this complainant so as to clear
26
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
legally enforceable debt failed to maintain sufficient
balance in his account with malafide intention.
Accordingly,
the accused failed to raise probable defence and
also failed to prove his defence. Accordingly, the accused
failed to rebut the presumption available in favour of the
complainant. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the
Negative.
34. Point No.2: It is the case of the
appellant/accused that the impugned judgment and
order of the Trial Court in C.C.No.53595/2019, dated
02.08.2023 is perverse, illegal, irregular, capricious and
contrary to the facts and material placed before it.
Therefore, it is required to be set-aside by intervention of
this court to meet the ends of justice. As I have already
discussed under Point No.1 and 2 that the Complainant
has categorically proved his contention that Ex.P1
cheque belongs to Accused, it has been issued in his
27
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
favour to discharge the legally recoverable debt.
Accordingly, to clear the said legally enforceable debt the
Accused has issued cheque under Ex.P1 to discharge the
said amount, same was dishonored with an endorsement
as ‘Funds Insufficient’. Even thereafter, he has not made
efforts to pay the cheque amount. Therefore, the said act
and conduct of Accused is clearly goes to show that he
has committed the offence punishable u/s. 138 of NI Act.
Though there is provision to rebut the presumption
available u/s 138 of NI Act, the Accused has miserably
failed to make out all his defence. Therefore, the
Complainant has proved that Accused has committed the
offence punishable u/s 138 of NI Act. No reason to deny
the same. The Appellant/Accused has miserably failed to
make out grounds of appeal. The Trial Court has taken
into consideration the evidence placed before it and
appreciated the facts and evidence. The Trial Court by
complying the correct proposition of law in the light of
principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as
28
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, has rightly come to
conclusion and given its conclusion holding that the
Accused has committed the offence punishable u/s. 138
of NI Act. The reasoning assigned by the Trial Court is
based on sound principles of law. It does not requires
any intervention. No reason to deny the same. The
Appellant/Accused has miserably failed to prove Point
No.2. Hence, I answer it in Negative.
35. POINT No.3: For the various reasons stated
in the point Nos.1 to 3 and findings given on them by me,
I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
Appeal filed by the
appellant/accused under section 374 of
Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, the impugned
judgment and order of conviction passed
by trial court in CC No.53595/2019
against the appellant/accused dated
02.08.2023 is hereby confirmed.
29
Crl.A. No.25252/2023
Remit the trial court records with
copy of this judgment.
No order as to costs.
—
(Dictated to the Stenographer, after computerization, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 9th day of May, 2025)
Digitally signed by
ANITHA
ANITHA NANJANAGUDU
NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY
PARASHIVAMURTHY
Date: 2025.05.13
14:51:54 +0530
(Anitha N.P.)
rd
73 Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
Bengaluru. (CCH-74)
[ad_2]
Source link