B P VENKATESULU Vs. K P MANI NAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) THIS petition by the complainant in C. C. No. 22663/1991 disposed of on the file of the learned XIV Addl. C. M. M. , Bangalore, is directed against the judgment dated 23-7-1999 of the lower appellate Court viz. , IV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, passed allowing respondent's Cr. A. No. 15008/1999 and setting aside the latter's conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Magistrate by his judgment of conviction dated 26-3-1999.

(3.) ON 10-5-1991, the complaint under S. 200 Cr. P. C. was presented by the complainant before the trial Magistrate in P. C. R. No. 77/1991 against respondent K. P. Mani Nayar alleging commission of the offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short) by him. The material allegations in the complaint were that on 14-8-1987, the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') borrowed a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash from the complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum within four years and that Ex. P-6 agreement dated 14-8-1987 to this effect was executed by the accused in complainant's favour. At the same time, Ex. P-1 post-dated cheque bearing the date 14-12-1990 towards discharge of the said loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- was also issued on the date of Ex. P-6 agreement i. e. , 14-8-1987 itself. Subsequently, when Ex. P-1 cheque which was drawn on Canara Bank. H. A. L. , Bangalore, was presented to the Bank on 6-4-1991, it was returned dishonoured with Ex. P-2 Bank's endorsement dated 9-4-1991 for want of sufficient funds. Therefore, Ex. P-3 demand notice dated 16-4-1991 was sent by the complainant by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due to the accused on his residential address and his business address as well. Both the said demand notices were served on the latter on 18-4-1991 and 20-4-1991 as borne out by the postal acknowledgements at Exs. P-4 and P-5 respectively. When the accused failed to respond to the said notices, the said complaint was presented before the learned Magistrate against him alleging commission of the said offence.