T.S. MURALIDHAR S/O SRIRAMAIAH Vs. SHI H. NARAYANA SINGH PROPRIETOR H.N. ENTERPRISES S/O LATE HIRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. upon grant of special leave by this Court, is by the complainant in C.C. No. 308/2004 on the file of the Additional C.J.M., Bangalore District, and is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.11.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court -II, Bangalore Rural District in Crl. A. No. 69/2006, whereby the judgment and order dated 17.5.2006 passed by the learned Magistrate convicting the respondent - accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short 'the N.I. Act'], came be set aside and the accused was acquitted.

(2.) THE appellant filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 142 of the N.I. Act against the respondent - accused inter alia contending that the respondent - accused had borrowed a hand loan of Rs. 1,00,000/ - in the month of July 2003 and towards discharge of the said hand loan, he issued the cheque bearing No. 238109 dated 15.11.2003, drawn on Canara Bank, Kolar and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same came to be returned unpaid with Banker's endorsement "funds insufficient" and in spite of service of legal notice to the respondent -accused on 10.12.2003 as required by law, respondent -accused failed to pay the amount covered under the cheques as such he has committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) THE respondent - accused during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. In defence, he examined himself as DW.1 and also produced Exs. D.1 to D.3. It was the contention of the respondent - accused that the complaint was barred by time as provided by Section 142 of the N.I. Act, therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the said offence. It was also his contention that the statutory notice was not properly addressed to him, therefore, there was no service of notice on him. He also denied the case of the complainant that he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - and that the cheque in question had been issued for the discharge of the said liability. It was his further defence that he had delivered certain blank cheques to the father -in -law of the complainant as security and one such blank cheque has been misused in the name of the complainant, though the complainant had not lent any money nor the cheque in question had been issued for discharge of debt or other liability to the complainant.