BASALINGAPPA Vs. MUDIBASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by accused challenging the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 04.07.2018 by which judgment the Criminal Appeal filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused has been allowed and the accused has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to fine of Rs. 8,00,000/-, in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The brief facts of the case for deciding the appeal are:-

(3.) Shri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant submits that accused has successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 and has raised probable defence, which was accepted by the trial court after considering the material on record. The High Court erred in setting aside the acquittal order. The accused has questioned the financial capacity of the complainant and without there being any proof of financial capacity, the High Court erred in observing that judgment of the trial court is perverse. It is submitted that burden of proof on accused under Section 138 is not a heavy burden as is on a prosecution to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the complainant being a retired employee of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, who having retired in 1977 and encashed his retirement benefits of Rs. 8,00,000/-, there was no financial capacity. It is submitted that complainant has filed cases under Section 138 against other persons also. Complainant had also made a payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- for the agreement of sale. The complainant was also a witness of a sale agreement executed by accused, where he received an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs as consideration. There was sufficient material on record to discharge the burden and the High Court erred in setting aside the acquittal order.