KARIYAPPA Vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an accused in the Court of learned XXI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court) in C.C. No.21712/2005 who was tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act ').

(2.) The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court was that the petitioner herein had borrowed a loan of an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- from it on 14.07.2003 for the purpose of purchasing a tractor of Mahindra Make. The accused had agreed to pay monthly hire charges of Rs. 57,600/- for four months from the date of the loan agreement. However, he committed default in the repayment of the loan in the form of monthly instalments. As such, the complainant - company repossessed the vehicle on 10.04.2004 and disposed off the said vehicle on 14.02.2005. Even after appropriating the sale proceeds towards loan liability of the accused, still he was due towards the cheque amount in a sum of Rs. 1,03,638/-. It was towards the payment of the said outstanding liability the accused issued a cheque bearing No.339206 dated 28.03.2005 drawn on State Bank of Mysuru, Harihar Branch, for the said sum of Rs. 1,03,638/-. When the said cheque was presented for realisation by the complainant with its banker on 30.03.2005, it was returned unpaid on 31.03.2005 with the banker's endorsement "insufficient funds in the account". The complainant - company also issued a legal notice dated 25.04.2005 demanding from the accused the payment of the cheque amount. The notices were sent both under 'registered post acknowledgement due' and 'certificate of posting'. In spite of the receipt of the said notices, the accused since failed to pay the cheque amount, the complainant was constrained to institute a complaint against him under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Trial Court for the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was held wherein the complainant got examined its Manager Mr.Manmohan Rao as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P8. The accused got himself examined as DW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.D1 to D.4a. The Trial Court, after hearing arguments from both side and considering the material on record, by its impugned Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence dated 12.11.2008, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him accordingly.

(3.) Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal in the Court of Fast Track (Sessions) Judge - V, Bangalore City(for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Session Judge's Court') in Crl.A. No.81/2009. The said Court, by its Judgment dated 16.12.2010 while confirming the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision petition.