KIRAN Vs. ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent.

(2.) The Petitioner was a complainant who had initiated proceedings under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the Respondent herein. The proceedings were contested by the Respondents. The Court below, on the allegation of the complainant that the complainant- Petitioner had business transactions with the Respondents, who were a partnership firm engaged in dealing with tarpaulins and that the Respondent herein had approached him for a loan and it was granted to him. On default of payment, a demand was made by the Petitioner and in consideration of discharge of the loan, the Respondent herein had issued a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- dated 30.6.2001. The said cheque, when presented to the Banker of the Petitioner, the same was returned on 31.12.2001 with an endorsement by the Banker of the Respondent as follows: 'refer to drawer'. It is in this background, that a legal notice was issued for the alleged offence and proceedings were initiated against the Respondents. Ultimately, the Court of Magistrate held that the offence was established and convicted the Respondent and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and further to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months, and also directed the accused to pay compensation of Rs. 65,000/- to the complainant.

(3.) The same was challenged in appeal before the Court of Fast Track Court, Jamakhandi. The Appellate Court, on the question, whether the cheque was presented within the period of six months, as prescribed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, held that the cheque dated 30.6.2001, having been presented according to the endorsement on the cheque on 31.12.2001, was beyond six months and therefore, there was No. criminal liability on dishonour of the cheque and therefore, held that the offence was not made out and the appeal was allowed. It is this order, which is questioned in the present petition.