K R SUDHIR Vs. PRAMODH KUMAR K. S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the complaint filed by the present appellant under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the present respondent, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'N.I.Act'), the learned XXII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and XXIV Addl.Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), by the judgment dated 10.11.2010, passed in C.C.No.29549/2007, acquitted the respondent/accused of the said offence. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant/appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) The summary of the case of the complainant in the trial Court is that, himself and the accused were well known to each other. The accused approached him in the month of February 2007, for a financial assistance of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to meet his family necessities and to improve his sand business. On the promise that the accused would repay the loan amount within six months from the date of its receipt, the complainant gave him a cash loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- in February 2007. Towards his liability, the accused issued him a cheque bearing No.450367, dated 1.9.2007, for the said sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, which was drawn on Canara Bank, Srirampuram Branch, Bengaluru, in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the said cheque for its realisation to his Banker, it came to be dishonoured for the reason of "insufficiency of funds". Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory notice to the accused, both through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due and under Certificate of Posting. The notice sent through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due was returned with the postal shara "Absent intimation delivered", on 3.10.2007. However, the notice sent through Certificate of Posting was not returned, as such, it was served on the accused. Since the accused did not repay the cheque amount demanded in the notice, the complainant was constrained to institute a case against him in the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

(3.) The respondent who was the accused in the trial Court appeared and contested the matter. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the complainant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-6. The accused got himself examined as DW-1 and got marked one document at Ex.D-1. During the course of cross-examination of DW-1, the summons issued by the trial Court was marked as Ex.C-1.