Karnataka High Court Mr Manojkumar vs M/S Chinmayi Hospital on 14 February, 2024 1 NC: 2024:KHC:6250 CRL.A No. 736 of 2015 DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 736 OF 2015 (A) BETWEEN: 1. MR. MANOJKUMAR S/O BHAVALALRANKA , AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.66, B.T.STREET, ANCHEPET, AVENUE ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE 53 2. MR.RISHAB JAIN S/O PRAKASHCHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.315, 11TH MAIN ROAD, B.S.K. I STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, BANGALORE 50 Digitally signed by SUMITHRA R ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED USMAN SHAIKH, ADVOCATE) Location: HIGH COURT OF AND: KARNATAKA 1. M/S CHINMAYI HOSPITAL NO.34, BRINDAVAN LAYOUT, SUBRAMANYPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560 061 2. MR.M.MUNIRAJU MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S CHINMAYI HOSPITAL, NO.34, BRINDAVAN LAYOUT, SUBRMANYPURA MAIN ROAD, 2 NC: 2024:KHC:6250 CRL.A No. 736 of 2015 BANGALORE 560 061 AND ALSO AT NO.1, GOWRINILAYA, NEAR POST OFFICE, DODDAKALLASANDRA, AND ALSO AT SULUGUNTE POST, MADAMANGALA VILLAGE, BANGARAPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR, KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C., PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ORDER DATED 11.02.2015 PASSED BY THE XXII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE, IN C.C.NO.8050/2009 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Appellant/complainant feeling aggrieved by judgment of Trial Court on the file of XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.8050/2009 dated 11.02.2015 preferred this appeal. 3 NC: 2024:KHC:6250 CRL.A No. 736 of 2015 2. Parties to the appeal are referred with their ranks as assigned in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. Heard the arguments of both sides. 4. After hearing arguments of both sides and on perusal of Trial Court records, so also the impugned judgment under appeal passed by Trial Court, the following points arise for consideration: 1) Whether the impugned judgment under appeal passed by Trial Court in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perverse, capricious and legally not sustainable? 2) Whether interference of this Court is required? 5. On careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, it would go to show that accused No.2 being proprietor of Chinmayi hospital issued cheque bearing No.520531 dated 10.01.2009 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ drawn on Canara Bank for lawful discharge 4 NC: 2024:KHC:6250 CRL.A No. 736 of 2015 of debt Ex.P.1. The said cheque on it's presentation by complainant through his banker State Bank of Mysore was dishonoured as "Funds Insufficient" vide bank endorsement Ex.P.2. Complainant issued demand notice dated 20.01.2009 Ex.P.3 through RPAD and under certificate of posting. Under certificate of posting receipt is produced at Ex.P.4 and the RPAD receipt are produced at Exs.P.5 to 8. The demand notice is duly served to respondent No.2 vide acknowledgement card produced at Ex.P.9. Accused has not replied to the notice nor paid the amount covered under cheque. Hence, complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "N.I.Act") came to be filed on 25.02.2009. 6. Learned counsel for