Karnataka High Court
Shriram Transport Finanance Co Ltd vs Shri Satish Kumar on 5 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4429
CRL.A No. 200267 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200267 OF 2024
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANANCE CO. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS,
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SHRI STEEVAN S/O G. CHRISTAMUKTHY,
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: GPA CUM SENIOR CREDIT
EXECUTIVE, STFC BIDAR BRANCH, AT
1ST FLOOR, # 8-10-135/1A,
SHREE VEERBHADRESHWAR CHAMBER,
NEAR NEHRU STADIUM, OPP. SAI SCHOOL,
Digitally signed by UDGIR ROAD, BIDAR-585401.
RAMESH
MATHAPATI
...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI D. P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
SHRI SATISH KUMAR S/O BHAGATARAJ,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/o. 229, GADAGI,
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.M. GHATE, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4429
CRL.A No. 200267 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378 (4) OF CR.P.C (OLD), U/S. 419(4) OF BNSS PRAYING TO
A) ADMIT THIS APPEAL B) ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND THEREBY
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DT.
05.07.2024 PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 160/2016 BY THE
II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC -II BIDAR AND FURTHER
CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NI ACT. C) AWARD DOUBLE THE
CHEQUE AMOUNT TO APPELLANT BY WAY OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA) The appellant being the complainant in C.C.No.160/2016 on the file of the learned II-Additional Civil Judge & JMFC-II, Bidar, is impugning the judgment dated 05.07.2024 acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short, 'the N.I.Act'].
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, the appellant
-complaint is a Non-Banking Finance Company engaged in providing finance under Hire Purchase, lease and loan cum -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4429 CRL.A No. 200267 of 2024 HC-KAR Hypothecation. The accused had approached the complainant and borrowed a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- on 12.10.2012 and purchased the Tata Venture-P bearing registration No.KA-38/7343. In that regard, the accused entered into loan cum Hypothecation agreement and undertook to repay the loan amount in 60 monthly installments. The accused was irregular in repaying the monthly installments. However, on repeated demand, he issued cheque bearing No.019401 dated 12.02.2015 for Rs.6,78,000/- towards repayment of loan amount. When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonored as funds insufficient. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 26.03.2015 calling upon the accused to repay the cheuqe amount. In-spite of service of notice, the accused had not re-paid the cheque amount nor replied to the notice and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, the private complaint in PCR.No.71/2015 came to be filed before the Trial Court.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4429 CRL.A No. 200267 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered the case in C.C.No.160/2016 and issued summons to accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 in support of his contention. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and examined himself as DW-1. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the complaint has not proved the existence of legally enforceable debt and therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the impugned judgment of acquittal came to be passed. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant is before this Court.
4. Heard Sri D.P.Ambekar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.M.Ghate, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on record. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4429 CRL.A No. 200267 of 2024 HC-KAR
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the judgment passed by the Trial Court acquitting the accused suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?"
6. My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
7. It is the contention of the complainant that the accused had entered into loan cum Hypothecation agreement and borrowed an amount of Rs.4,30,000/- on 12.10.2012 for purchasing the vehicle. This fact is not in dispute, rather it is admitted by the accused. However, it is the contention of the complainant that as on 12.02.2015 a sum of Rs.6,78,000/- was due to be paid by the accused and towards repayment of the said amount the cheque as per Ex.P1 was issued. This figure of Rs.6,78,000/- is disputed by the accused denying that such an amount was not due to be paid by him. PW.1 was cross-examined at -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4429 CRL.A No. 200267 of 2024 HC-KAR length in that regard. In spite of that, no statement of account was produced by the complainant nor the details of repayment made by the accused was brought to the notice of the Court.
8. Ex.P2 is the cheque return memo, Ex.P3 is the postal receipt for having sent the legal notice to accused, Ex.P4 is the postal track consignment to contend that notice was served on the accused, Ex.P5 is certified copy of power of attorney authorizing PW.1 to represent him and Ex.P6 is the authorization letter. Strangely, even the office copy of the legal notice was not separately marked. However, it is produced along with Ex.P2, which is the cheque endorsement.
9. To attract Section 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant is required to place on record the document in support of its contention that an amount of Rs.6,78,000/- was due from the accused as on 12.02.2015 and the cheque at Ex.P1 was issued towards discharge of such an amount. Even though the complainant is a non-banking -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4429 CRL.A No. 200267 of 2024 HC-KAR finance company, lent the amount to the accused for purchase of vehicle, which is supposed to maintain proper account, but has not chosen to produce any piece of paper to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt. Section 138 of N.I. Act, could not be attracted, when the basic ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act is not proved by the complainant. Under such circumstances, the presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act is also not attracted. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the complainant is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
10. I have gone through the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has proceeded to acquit the accused on the ground that the existence of legally enforceable debt is not proved by the complainant, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said judgment and hence it does not call for interference -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4429 CRL.A No. 200267 of 2024 HC-KAR by this Court. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT:PK