SRICHAND Vs. SEKHAR R.KUNDAGOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 27.08.2012 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and Principal JMFC., Dharwad, in C.C.No.607/2007 acquitting the respondent of the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereafter referred to as 'N.I.Act' ).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as " Cr.P.C ." for short) by complainant against accused stating that complainant and accused are acquainted with each other and accused was a regular customer of complainant who was a dealer in gold & silver articles. During April 2006, the accused purchased gold ornaments worth Rs.2,50,000/- and paid Rs.70,000/- in cash and for the balance amount of Rs.1,80,000/- issued a post dated cheque No.248572 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Vidyagiri Branch, Dharwad dated 10.05.2006. A bond was also given reiterating the promise. When the cheque was presented for payment on 02.08.2006, it returned unpaid. The complainant represented the cheque once again on 01.09.2006, but the cheque came to be dishonored once again and returned along with Banker's intimation 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, complainant got issued statutory notice through RPAD. The same was served on the accused on 03.10.2006. Accused did not repay the cheque amount or replied to the notice, thereby, constraining the complainant to present the complaint.

(3.) After recording sworn statement of the complainant, the trial Court took cognizance and ordered summons to the accused. On appearance, accused pleaded not guilty and sought trial. On behalf of complainant, two witnesses, namely PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 were marked. On behalf of accused, DW-1 and DW-2 were examined. No documents were marked. After explaining the incriminating material to accused, his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter on consideration of evidence available, the trial Court framed the following points for consideration.