BHARATHI W/O L. BASAPPA Vs. (SIC) K. KANATHARAJU S/O KANTILINGAIAH, TEACHER, SRI KANCHIRAYA RURAL HIGH SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. by the complainant is directed against the Judgment, and Order dated 1 1.02.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC. Turuvekere in C.C. No. 107/2007. acquitting the respondent -accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (for short 'the N.I. Act').

(2.) THE appellant filed private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act inter -alia contending that about one year prior to the date of the complaint the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 1.50.000/ - from her as hand loan and towards repayment of the said amount, the accused issued a cheque dated 30.11.2006 for a sum of Rs. 1.50.000/ - drawn on Karnataka Bank. However when she presented the said cheque for encashment, the same was returned unpaid with banker's endorsement dated 4.12.2006 "funds insufficient". Immediately the complainant issued a notice dated 08 -12 -2006 to the accused informing him about dishonoring of the cheque and calling upon him to pay the amount covered under the cheque within the period allowed under the law. However in spite of service of notice, the respondent failed to pay the amount, as such the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) DURING his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the complainant. In defence the accused examined himself as DW. 1. It was the defence of the accused that there was no monitory transaction between him and the complaint and at no point of time he had borrowed money much less Rs. 1.50.000/ - from the complainant nor he had issued any cheque to the complainant, for discharge of any debt or other liability due by him to the complainant. It was his further defence that the son -in -law of the complainant one Ravi was running a chit of which he was a member and in connection with the said chit business, he had delivered a signed blank cheque to said Ravi and the same has been misused by the complainant by filling up the fanciful amount though she had not lent any money to the accused.