Karnataka High Court B Nagalakshmamma vs Sushma Shree Heggade D on 7 February, 2023 1 CRL.A No. 18 of 2017 DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.N.DESAI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2017 BETWEEN: B NAGALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, W/O NATARAJU M.C., R/O OPP. TO EXCOUNSELLOR, CHANNAPATNA, 12TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, CHANNAPATNA, ALSO AT: NO.39/40, HP COMPANY, HAMLET PACKARD GLOBAL, SOFTWARE LTD., ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE 100. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI L VAIDYA .,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by AND: NAGARATHNA M Location: HIGH SUSHMA SHREE HEGGADE D COURT OF AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS KARNATAKA W/O NATARAJU M.C. R/O OPP. TO EXCOUNSELLOR CHANNAPATNA, 12TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, CHANNAPATNA ALSO AT NO. 39/40, HP COMPANY HAMLET PACKARD GLOBAL SOFTWARE LTD. ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU 100 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR K .,ADVOCATE) 2 CRL.A No. 18 of 2017 THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.12.2016 PASSED BY THE XXIII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.23464/2014 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of the judgment passed in C.C.No.23464/2014 dated 07.12.2016 by the XXIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, wherein the respondent/accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'N.I.Act'). 2. The appellant was the complainant and respondent was the accused before the Trial Court. They will be referred as per their respective ranks held before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The complainant filed a private complaint before the learned ACMM contending that the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ from the complainant on 20.09.2013 and promised to repay the same within six months. Thereafter, 3 CRL.A No. 18 of 2017 the complainant demanded for return of amount and in order to repay the same, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.485478 dated 22.03.2014 drawn on Indusind Bank, Thippasandra Branch, Bengaluru. When the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment, the same is returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds". Then the complainant issued a statutory legal notice through RPAD. But the accused neither repaid the amount nor replied to the notice. Hence, the complaint filed a complaint before the Trial Court. 4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, she got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked ten documents as Exs.P1 to P10. After recording the statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), the accused got examined herself as DW.1 and got marked nine documents as Exs.D1 to D9. After hearing the arguments, learned ACMM, acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed. 4 CRL.A No. 18 of 2017 5.. Heard the arguments of Sri. Ravi L.Vaidya, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Nagendra Kumar K, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment of Trial Court is illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evid