SHANTHAMMA Vs. SUNANDA REDDY, MAJOR MARUTHI VIDYA MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 18/10/2011 passed by learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal in C.C.No.25/2005, wherein accused came to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the complainant has come in this appeal.

(2.) In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties are addressed in accordance with the rankings held by them before the trial Court.

(3.) The substance of the complaint is that complainant and the accused are known to each other for the past 10 years as on the date of filing the complaint. The accused requested for financial assistance of Rs.2,10,000.00 from the complainant (it is submitted that at that time, the accused was a tenant in the house of the complainant). The amount so sought by way of loan by the accused was stated to be received to counter the family difficulties and the complainant responded favourably and paid Rs.2,10,000.00 as sought by the accused and towards the repayment of the same, the accused issued a blank cheque bearing No.530882 dtd. 30/9/2004 drawn on ICICI bank, Hosur Branch. When the complainant presented the cheque for payment, it was dishonored for want of sufficient funds on 6/10/2004 and the intimation was given to the complainant on 7/10/2004 and was received by the complainant on 11/10/2004 as per Ex.C4. Therefore, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 9/11/2004. Though, the notice was served on her, there was neither reply nor compliance on the part of the accused. The return acknowledgment indicates that notice was served on the accused on 10/11/2004 itself. The complainant after waiting for the statutory period, filed the complaint under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C., before the trial Court for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against the accused.