Bangalore District Court
Dakshanamma Puttappa vs M/S Chithanya Rural Intermediation … on 15 April, 2026
1
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-56)
DATED: THIS THE 15th DAY OF APRIL 2026
PRESENT
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU, M.A., LL.M.
LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.12/2024
Appellant/ Mrs.Dakshanamma Puttappa,
accused W/o Puttappa,
R/at: Hegdehalli Village, Tarikere Taluk,
Digitally
signed by Chikkamagaluru District-577550.
MOHAN
MOHAN PRABHU
PRABHU Date:
2026.04.22 [R/by Sri.N.K.B, ADV.
13:01:59
+0530
Vs
Respondent/ M/s.Chaithanya Rural Intermediation,
Complainant Development Service Private Ltd.,
No.98, 3rd Floor, Sirsi Circle,
Near Nalanda Theater,
Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560108
Represented by its Power of Attorney
Holder; Mr.Veeresh.P.
[R/by Sri K.M.Thippeswamy,Adv.]
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed U/s.374[3] of Cr.P.C., by the
accused against the judgment of conviction dated:
04.12.2023 passed in C.C. No.22877/2022 by learned
2
Cri Appeal No.12/2024XXV ACJM, Bengaluru, for the offence under S.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act [for short ‘N.I. Act”].
(2) The parties are referred to their rank before
the trial court.
(3) The case of the complainant is briefly stated
as follows:
The complainant is a non banking financial
company. The accused along with her spouse has availed
a term loan of Rs 1,30,000 from the complainant at its
Ajjampura Branch by executing such loan documents on
12.10.2017 vide loan account No. 33243 and on the
primary security being mortgage of their house property.
The accused agreed to repay the loan with interest at
22% per annum by way of equated monthly installments.
But the accused has committed default in payment of the
loan amount. As on October 2019, accused was due in a
sum of Rs 2,90,301/-. On demand, towards repayment of
the same, accused issued cheque bearing No. 023712
dated 24.10.2019 drawn on Axis Bank Ajjampura Branch
for sum of Rs 2,90,301 in favour of the complainant. The
complainant presented the said cheque for collection
through its HDFC Bank Jayanagara IV th Tblock
3
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
Bangalore, but the cheque came to be dishonored as
“account closed” as per their memorandum dated
25.10.2019. The complainant got issued legal notice
dated 21.11.2019 to the accused calling her to pay the
cheque amount. The notice has been duly served to the
accused on 26.11.2019. But the accused has failed to pay
the cheque amount. Hence the complaint.
(4) Based on the complaint filed by the complainant the learned Magistrate had taken
cognizance of the offence punishable u/S.138 of NI Act
and registered a case as PCR No.1721/2020. The sworn
statement of the complainant came to be recorded. The
complainant filed affidavit for sworn statement and got
marked document Ex.P1 to P8. The learned Magistrate
after perusal of the complaint averments, the sworn
statement of the complainant and documents passed an
order dated 15.07.2022 to register the case against the
accused as criminal case in Register No.III. Accordingly,
case in C.C.No.22877/2022 came to be registered against
the accused and summons came to be issued. The
accused entered appearance by engaging her counsel on
24.02.2023 and released on bail and on the same day.
4
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
Accusation read over to the accused for which the
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. The
learned Magistrate by following the direction of Hon’ble
Apex Court in INDIAN BANK ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF
INDIA, the sworn statement of the complainant treated as
evidence, and posted the case for cross examination of
P.W.1. Before trial court, on the complainant side, PW1 to
PW3 were examined documents Ex.P1 to 14 are marked.
IN the cross-examination of PW2, documents Ex.D1 and
Ex.D2 are marked on the side of the accused. The
accused has not lead his defence evidence. Thereafter,
after hearing the arguments of both sides, the learned
Magistrate pronounced the judgment on 04.12.2023 and
acting u/s.255(2) of CrPC the accused convicted for the
offences punishable u/S.138 of NI Act and sentenced to
pay fine amount of Rs.3,00,301/-, in default to payment
of fine, shall undergo simple imprisonment for six
months. Acting u/S.357(1)(b) of CrPC it is ordered that
out of fine amount the complainant is entitled for sum of
Rs.2,95,301/- towards compensation and the remaining
amount of Rs.5,000/- is to be remitted to the State.
5
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
(5) Aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction, the
accused has preferred this appeal on following grounds :
The Judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by learned magistrate is highly illegal arbitrary
and contrary to the law and facts of the case. The learned
magistrate has gravely erred in coming to the conclusion
that presumption U/s 139 of NI Act is not rebutted by the
accused, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The
learned magistrate has failed to consider that the
complainant has failed to prove the existence of legally
recoverable debt. The very statement of the complainant
about transaction itself is unbelievable. The complainant
has created the documents for the purpose of filing this
case. The disputed cheque not issued for the purpose of
discharge of loan. PW3 categorically admitted that blank
cheque was issued for security purpose at the time of
obtaining the sanctioned loan amount. In the complaint,
the loan amount sanctioned is mentioned as 1,30,000/-
but in the cross-examination of PW3, she categorically
stated that loan amount was of Rs 1,80,000/- The
complainant filed similar case before trial court in CC No.
29954/2017 against the accused for the offence U/s 138
6
Cri Appeal No.12/2024of NI Act which came to be dismissed on 26.09.2022.
After that complaint, the complainant filed this complaint.
The cheque in CC No. 29954/ 2017 was returned with
bank endorsement as “account closed”. The complainant
who had knowledge of the accused bank account was
closed in the year 2017, intentionally presented the
cheque to the same account of the appellant bank. After
clearance of the loan amount, the appellant closed her
bank account. She has issued a blank cheques at the
time of obtaining loan amount. The complainant misused
the said blank cheques to grab the money from the
appellant. The cheques were not issued for repayment of
loan amount or discharge of liability. The trial court has
not considered the defense of the appellant in view of
documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. The learned magistrate
without appreciating the material evidence, has
mechanically passed judgment of conviction which is not
tenable in the eye of law. The trial court has not given
finding before imposing fine amount. The trial court has
failed to appreciate the provisions of Cr.P.C and NI Act.
The trial court erred in holding that the appellant did not
rebut the presumption. The trial Court is erred in insisting
7
Cri Appeal No.12/2024the appellant to disprove the non existence of
consideration by leading direct evidence as existence of
negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated
and even if led, would be considered doubtful. Hence on
these grounds, the Appellant prayed to set aside the
judgment and order dated 04.12.2023.
(6) The trial court records received.
(7) The respondent/complainant entered
appearance by engaging his counsel.
(8) I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for appellant and learned counsel for the
respondent. They have also filed written arguments
(9) I have perused the entire record.
(10) The learned counsel for the Appellant relied
upon 2 citations
1. Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
reported in ILR 2014 Kar 2168
2. Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court between Ms
Naresh Potteries v/s Ms Aarti Industries and another
decided on 2.01.2025.
(11) The following points would arise for my
consideration:-
8
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
Point No.1:- Whether the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence
passed thereon is illegal, perverse
and calls for interference?
Point No.2:- Whether there is sufficient grounds
made out by the appellant to set side
the judgment passed in C.C.No.
22877/2022 as prayed for?
Point No.3:- What order?
(12) My findings to the above points are as below:-
Point No.1:- In the affirmative
Point No.2:- In the affirmative.
Point No.3:- As per the final order,
for the following
REASONS
(13) POINT NO.1&2:- These points are taken
up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition in
discussion of evidence and for the sake of convenience.
(14) It is the specific case of the complainant is that
the accused along with her spouse availed term loan of
Rs 1,30,000 from the complainant from its Ajjampura
Branch by executing loan documents on 12.10.2017 vide
loan account No. 33243 and on primary security being
mortgage of house property. Hence it is the contention of
the complainant is that the accused had issued Ex.P4
9
Cri Appeal No.12/2024cheque bearing no. 023712 of Rs 2,90,301 dated
24.10.2019 drawn on Axis Bank Ajjampura Branch for
repayment of this loan amount. It is pertinent to note
that, it is not the contention of the complainant is that
accused and her husband had obtained loan amount
twice. By reiterating the complaint averments, on the
side of the complainant, 3 representatives have given
their evidence. At first instance, Sri Veeresh P who filed
this complaint as representative of power of attorney
holder examined himself as PW1 and documents Ex.P1 to
Ex.P8 were marked through him. When the case posted
for cross-examination of PW1, he did not turned up.
Hence on the side of complainant, Sri Pavan BK who is
authorized representative of the complainant examined
himself as PW2 and documents Ex.P9 marked through
him. PW2 partly cross-examined by the learned counsel
for the accused. The cross-examination of PW2 deferred
on 12.07.2023. Thereafter PW2 did not appear before
trial court to tender himself for further cross-examination.
Hence on the side of the complainant, legal officer by
name Deepthi examined herself as PW3. Documents
Ex.P10 to Ex.P14 are marked through her. It is important
10
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
to note here is that PW1 to PW3 in their examination in
chief affidavit have deposed that accused borrowed sum
of Rs 1,30,000 from the complainant company. PW1 and
PW3 in their examination in chief have deposed that the
accused availed term loan of Rs 1,30,000 on 12.10.2017
from complainant branch. PW 1 to PW3 have deposed
that for repayment of the loan amount, accused had
issued cheque bearing no. 023712 dated 24.10.2019 for
Rs 2,90,301 in favour of the complainant. Thus the
complainant neither in complaint and their
representatives PW1 to PW3 nor in their chief
examination stated that the accused had availed loan of
Rs 1,80,000 in the year 2016. The reason this court
stressing on this point is because, according to the
complainant, accused had issued Ex.P4 cheque for
repayment of loan amount borrowed by her on
12.10.2017. But in the present case, the loan account
extract and loan documents such as copy of deed of
simple mortgage, copy of loan agreement are all dated
16.05.2016 and not that of the year 2017 or dated
12.10.2017.
11
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
(15) In this case, inorder to prove the case of the
complainant, on side of complainant, 14 documents are
marked as Ex.P1 to 14. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the
incorporation certificate. Ex.P2 is certified copy of board
resolution. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of power of
attorney. Ex.P4 is the cheque. Ex.P5 is the bank
endorsements. Ex.P6 is copy of legal notice dated
21.11.2019. Ex.P7 is postal reciept for having sent the
notice to the accused. Ex.P8 is the postal
acknowledgment for having served the notice. Ex.P9 is
copy of authorization letter issued in favour of PW2.
Ex.P10 is the original authorization letter issued in favour
of PW3. Ex.P11 is the web copy of account ledger extract
regarding the loan of the accused. Ex.P12 is the copy of
deed of simple mortgage. Ex.P13 is the loan agreement.
Ex.P14 is the EC in Form No. 15.
(16) On perusal of the documents Ex.P11 to Ex.P13,
loan documents, it would go to show that these
documents are of the loan account no. 333243 for Rs
1,80,000/- which sanctioned on 16.05.2016. But in the
complaint as well as the chief examination affidavit of
PW1 and PW3, they have stated that the accused availed
12
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
term loan of Rs 1,30,000 on 12.10.2017. There is
absolutely no loan documents produced by the
complainant to show that accused had availed term loan
of Rs 1,30,000 on 12,10,2017. The complainant laid
foundation i.e., by filing the complaint stating that the
accused availed a term loan of Rs 1,30,000 on
12.10.2017 for which she had issued Ex.P4 cheque dated
24.10.2019 for Rs. 2,90,301. But during the course of
cross-examination of PW2 and PW3, they have started to
take contention that accused have availed mortgage loan
of Rs 1,80,000 for which she had issued cheque. The
complainant without there being putting correct
foundation started to construct building by deviation
which is not admissible.
(17) The documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 are marked
through PW2. PW2 in his cross-examination admitted that
very same complainant represented by PW1 Veeresh
filed the complaint for the offence U/s 138 of NI Act in CC
No. 29954/2017 which came to be dismissed for non
prosecution on 26.09.2022. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of
entire order sheet in CC no. 29954/2017. Ex.D2 is the
certified copy of the complaint which filed by the very
13
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
same complainant against the very same accused in CC
No 29954/2017. As per Ex.D2 complaint, the very same
person PW1 Veeresh P has a power of attorney holder of
the complainant filed this complaint against the present
accused. In this complaint as per Ex.D2, in para no. 4, it
is stated that accused jointly with her husband v.i.z., Mr
Puttappa has availed a term loan of Rs 1,80,000 vide loan
account no. 333243 from complainant at its Kadoor
branch on 17.08.2016 by executing such loan documents
and also on security being mortgaged of the residential
property owned by them. In Para No. 5 of this complaint,
it is stated that as on August 2017, the accused person
was overdue in a sum of Rs 54,474 and on demand
towards repayment of the same, the accused issued
cheque bearing no. 023711 dated 24.08.2017 drawn on
Axis Bank Ltd Kadoor Branch for Rs 54,474/- in favour of
the complainant. In Para No. 7 of the complaint, it is
stated that the bankers of the accused have returned the
same dishonored for the reason “account closed” as per
bankers memorandum dated 4.09.2017. In para No. 8 of
this complaint, the complainant mentioned regarding
issuing of a statutory demand notice dated 13.09.2017.
14
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
PW2 in his cross-examination admitted the documents
Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. The complainant in the present
complaint would contend that the accused along with her
husband has availed a term loan of Rs 1,30,000 from the
complainant at its Ajjampura Branch by executing loan
documents on 12.10.2017 vide loan account No. 33243.
It is the contention of the complainant is that accused
inorder to discharge the entire outstanding debt issued
Ex.P4 cheque bearing no. 023712 drawn on Axis bank
Ajjampura Branch dated 24.10.2019 for Rs. 2,19,201/-. if
at all the contention of the complainant is that the loan
transaction which is mentioned in Ex.D2 complaint and
present complaint are one and the same, the matter
would have different. If we compare the loan transaction
which are mentioned in Ex.D2 with the present
complaints, loan transaction, there are number of
differences. Firstly in Ex.D2 complaint, the term loan
amount is mentioned as 1,80,000 but in the present
complaint, the term loan is mentioned as 1,30,000.
Secondly, in Ex.D2 complaint, the loan account is
mentioned as 333243 whereas in present complaint, the
loan account is mentioned as 33243. In Ex.D2, the branch
15
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
in which loan was sanctioned is mentioned as Kadoor
branch. Whereas in present complaint, the complainants
branch is mentioned as Ajjampura Branch. In Ex.D2,
complaint the loan sanctioned date and execution of loan
documents is mentioned as 17.08.2016. But in the
present case, the sanctioning of loan and executing loan
documents mentioned as 12.10.2017. The cheque which
is mentioned in Ex.D2 complaint is cheque no. 023711 of
Axis bank Ltd Kadoor branch, but in the present case, the
cheque no. is mentioned as 023712 of Axis Bank
Ajjampura Branch. That means in the present case,
immediate subsequent cheque leaf is used in this case.
The complainant in the present case strangely got
marked the documents of account no. 333243 as Ex.P11
to 13 which is mentioned in Ex.D2 complaint. That means
the present cheque Ex.P4 also pertaining to same loan
transaction of loan account no. 333243. but the
complainant in the present complaint stated that the
term loan of Rs 1,30,000/- was availed by the accused
from the complainant’s branch Ajjampura Branch by
executing loan documents on 12.10.2017. Inorder to
substantiate the contentions taken by the complainant
16
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
and to show that accused had obtained loan of Rs
1,30,000 by executing loan documents on 12.10.2017
under loan account no. 33243, the complainant has not
produced any documents.
(18) The arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the complainant knowing very well that
the bank account of the accused was already closed,
misused Ex.P4 security cheque is acceptable. In Ex.D1,
the complainant stated that accused issued cheque
bearing no. 023711 dated 24.08.2017 for Rs. 54,474/-
drawn on Axis Bank Ltd Kadoor branch came to be
dishonored as per bank endorsement dated 4.09.2017 as
account closed. The complainant who knows that the
bank account of the accused already closed as per bank
endorsement dated 04.09.2017. But the complainant in
the present complaint taken the strange contention that
accused availed loan of Rs 1,30,000 by executing loan
document of 12.10.2017 under loan account No. 33243
and for repayment of the loan amount of Rs 2,90,301,
she issued cheque no. 023712 dated 24.10.2019 which
also dishonored for account closed is doubtful When the
bank account of the accused closed prior to 4.09.2017
17
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
which is narrated by the complainant himself in Ex.D2
sanctioning subsequent loan and receiving another
cheque dated 24.10.2019 as per Ex.P4 itself is doubtful.
During the course of cross-examination of PW2, in Page
no. 2, he has sated that the principal loan of Rs 1,30,000
was taken in the year 2016. In page no. 3 of cross-
examination, PW2 has deposed that till today, the
accused has made part payment of Rs 20,000/-. He has
admitted the documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 in Page no. 4
of his cross-examination. He has also admitted that the
case in CC No. 29954/2017 came to be dismissed for non
prosecution on 26.09.2022 in which the disputed cheque
was bearing no.023711. In his cross-examination at Page
no. 6, he has deposed that the the principal loan amount
of Rs. 1,30,000 have been transferred to the accused
through her account. Now coming to the cross-
examination of PW3 is concerned, she in page no. 3 of
cross-examination stated that the principal loan amount
of Rs. 1,30,000 obtained for house construction. In her
cross-examination at Pg No. 4, when question asked to
her by showing document Ex.P11, she stated that as per
Ex.P11, complainant finance has transferred loan amount
18
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
of Rs 90,000 each at 2 installments dated 20.06. 2016
and 13.07.2016. Thus one thing is to be noted here is
that PW3 changed her version regarding the loan
transaction by enhancing amount of Rs 1,30,000 to
1,80,000 only after seeing the document Ex.P11. That
means as per Ex.P11, account statement, the loan was
not of Rs 1,30,000, it was of Rs 1,80,000. The loan
sanctioned was not dated 12.10.2017 as mentioned in
the complaint. As per Ex.P11, the loan amount was
transferred in 2 installments of 90,000 each on
20.06.2016 and 13.07.2016. The trial court without there
being the complaint averments and chief examination of
PW1 to PW3, on going through the ledger extract Ex.P11
held that the loan amount was Rs 1,80,000/- since there
is no pleading on averments made by the complainant
and witness that the accused borrowed sum of Rs
1,80,000 as mentioned in Ex.P11, in the year 2016, under
loan account no. 333243, the court cannot hold that
Ex.P4 issued with regarding to the loan amount
mentioned in Ex.P11 ledger extract. The complaint
averments, chief examination of PW 1 to PW3 are quite
contrary to the the documents Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 marked
19
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
on the side of the complainant.
(19) It is now settled principal of law is that inorder
to rebut the presumption available to the complainant U/s
139 of NI Act, the accused need not be stepped into the
witness box. That accused can rebut the presumption by
effectively cross examining the complainant and witness.
In the present case, during the course of cross-
examination of PW2, documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 are
marked. The documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 are sufficient to
hold that the bank account of the accused closed much
prior to 4.09.2017. the endorsement issued by the
complainant with regarding to cheque bearing no.
023711 mentioned in Ex.D2. Despite the complainant
knows that the bank account of the accused closed prior
to 4.09.2017, the complainant sanctioned the loan dated
12.10.2017 for Rs. 1,30,000 in favour of the accused and
received Ex.P4 cheque dated 24.10.2019 itself is
doubtful. PW3 in page no. 8 of her cross-examination at
Para No. 4 has admitted that disputed cheque received
from the accused as on the date of sanctioning of loan
towards security purpose. In page no.9 of her cross-
examination, she has deposed that in Ex.P4, the
20
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
Ajjampura Branch has not been mentioned. But cheque is
of Kadur branch of Axis bank. She has deposed that they
have filled Ex.P4 on 24.10.2019. Such admission given by
PW3 in her cross-examination would go to show that
Ex.P4 cheque was taken by the complainant from the
accused for security purpose as on the date of
sanctioning of loan. Ex.P4 cheque was filled by the
complainant themselves on 24.10.2019. PW3 in her
cross-examination clearly admitted the suggestion that at
the time of sanctioning the loan, they have received
blank signed Ex.P4 cheque from the accused. Under such
circumstances, the entire averments made in the
complaint as well as in examination in chief of PW1 and
PW3 collapses down. In complaint as well as examination
in chief of PW1 and PW3, it is stated that accused
borrowed term loan of Rs 1,30,000 by executing loan
documents on 12.10.2017. It is stated that for the month
of October 2019, the total due was sum of Rs 2,90,301.
Hence towards repayment of the same, accused had
issued Ex.P4 cheque dated 24.10.2019. But quite
contrary to this, PW3 in her cross-examination stated that
they have received Ex.P4 cheque of the accused at the
21
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
time of sanctioning the loan for security purpose and
thereafter they have filled Ex.P4 as 24.10.2019. First of
all there is no clear evidence on the side of the
complainant date on which the loan was granted in
favour of the accused. Secondly there is no clear
evidence on the side of the complainant to show what
was the actual amount of loan, whether it was 1,30,000
or 1,80,000. Thirdly, there is no clear evidence under
which loan account loan was granted, whether it was loan
account no. 33243 or loan account no. 333243. Fourthly,
there is no clear evidence on the side of the complainant
whether the documents Ex.P11 to 13 relied by the
complainant pertaining to the loan transaction dated
12.10.2017 mentioned in the complaint or it was the loan
transaction of the year 2016 as mentioned in these
documents. But fact remains by the deposition of PW3 is
that complainant received Ex.P4 blank signed cheque of
the accused at the time of sanctioning the loan but
thereafter the complainant filled Ex.P4 as dated
24.10.2019. thereby the accused rebutted the
presumption available to the complainant provided U/s
139 of NI Act by demonstrating before the court that
22
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
Ex.P4 cheque was received by the complainant for
security purpose, the complainant knowing very well that
the bank account of the accused closed prior to
4.09.2017 as mentioned in Ex.D2 complaint, despite the
same, the complainant used Ex.P4 blank cheque to suit
their alleged loan transaction dated 12.10.2017. The
complainant has failed to prove that the accused along
with her husband availed a term loan of Rs 1,30,000 by
executing such loan documents on 12.10.2017 vide loan
account no. 33243 as mentioned in the complaint and as
deposed by PW1 and 3 in their examination in chief. The
failure of the complainant to show such loan availed by
the accused by executing loan documents on 12.10.2017,
the entire case of the complainant that accused issued
Ex.P4 cheque for repayment of the loan amount also not
proved. Hence this court of the opinion that the accused
has successfully rebutted the presumption available to
the complainant U/s 139 of NI Act by eliciting in the cross-
examination of PW2 that earlier complaint as per Ex.D1
and 2 was filed which came to be dismissed for non
prosecution wherein the cheque also came to be
dishonored for “account closed”. The accused also
23
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
elicited from the mouth of PW3 is that complainant
received Ex.P4 cheque as a security purpose while
sanctioning the loan. Thereafter the complainant filled up
Ex.P4 by mentioning the date as 24.10.2019 and by
mentioning the amount as 2,90,301. Since the
complainant failed to prove the sanctioning of the loan in
favour of the accused on 12.10.2017, the complainant
also failed to prove that Ex.P4 cheque issued by the
accused for repayment of the loan amount. I have gone
through the decision cited by the learned counsel for the
appellant which is reported in ILR 2014 Kar 2168 and
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Naresh
Potteries case. Since the appellant in this appeal memo
has not raised any such objection of authority of PW1 to
PW3 in giving their evidence, in my humble view, these
cited decision can be distinguished on facts. But on re-
appreciation of the evidence on record, this court of the
opinion that the accused successfully rebutted the
presumption U/s 139 of NI Act by preponderance of
probability and successfully proved that the complainant
misused the blank signed cheque of the accused which
received for the security purpose by filling the same and
24
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
filed this complaint. The complainant has failed to prove
that accused borrowed sum of Rs 1,30,000 by executing
loan documents on 12.10.2017 under loan account no.
33243 and issued Ex.P4 cheque dated 24.10.2019 for
repayment of loan amount. Hence the accused is entitled
for acquittal. The trial court without there being any
averments or evidence on the side of the complainant
relied the document Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 which is of not the
loan transaction mentioned in the complaint. The
complainant has failed to prove that Ex.P4 cheque issued
by the accused inorder to discharge her liability and
towards payment of the loan amount mentioned in the
complaint. Hence this appellate court of the opinion that
the trial court without appreciating the evidence on
record come to wrong conclusion that the complainant
has proved ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act and
accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 138 of
NI Act. On re appreciation of evidence, the complainant
has failed to prove the very loan transaction mentioned
in the complaint and deposed by PW1 to PW3 in their
examination in chief. The complainant has failed to prove
accused issued Ex.P4 cheque towards discharge of legal
25
Cri Appeal No.12/2024
liability. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.
Hence I answered Point no. 1 and 2 in the affirmative.
(20) POINT NO.3:- In view of my findings on point
No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
This appeal filed by the appellant /
accused U/s.374 [3] of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned XXV
ACJM, Bengaluru, in C.C. No.22877/2022
dated 04.12.2023 is hereby set aside.
Consequently, acting U/s 255(1) of CrPC,
accused is acquitted for the offence
punishable U/s 138 of NI Act. The fine
amount deposited by the appellant/
accused shall be refunded to the accused
through her bank account on due
identification after completion of appeal
period.
The office is directed to send back
TCR forthwith to learned XXV ACJM,
Bengaluru, along with a copy of this
judgment.
[Dictated to the SG-I, transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and then pronounced in the open court on this
the 15th day of APRIL 2026]
(MOHAN PRABHU),
LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru. (CCH-56)