JAYALAKSHMI B. Vs. NEELAKANTAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner was accused in C.C.No.32000/2009, in the Court of the learned XXII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "trial Court"). By its judgment dtd. 25/8/2014, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as Rs. N.I.Act') and was sentenced accordingly.

(2.) The summary of the case of the complainant in the trial Court is that the accused is the owner of an immovable property bearing No.207, situated at BBMP Ward No.36, Bengaluru, which she intended to sell to the buyers. The complainant agreed to purchase the same for a sale consideration of Rs. 15,25,000/-, in which regard, Sale Agreement was entered into between them on 1/9/2007, whereunder, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 5,20,000/- as an advance amount to the accused. It is also the case of the complainant that the accused had borrowed a loan of Rs. 13,50,000/- from the Canara Bank and was unable to repay the said loan, as such, at the request of the accused and her husband, he paid a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- to them by way of cash to discharge the said loan raised by the accused. While availing the said loan, the accused and her husband entered into an Agreement dtd. 19/9/2008 and undertook to repay the same on or before 6/3/2009, however, the accused did not repay the loan amount. When the repayment was demanded, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant bearing No.534292, dtd. 28/5/2009, drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Sadashivanagar Branch, Bengaluru, for a sum of Rs. 5,31,875/-, in favour of the complainant. When the said cheque was presented by the complainant for its realisation, the same came to be returned dishonoured with the Banker's shara as "funds insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused demanding the payment of the cheque amount. Since the accused did not meet the demand made in the notice, the complainant was constrained to file a criminal case against her for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act in the trial Court.

(3.) Since the accused pleaded not guilty, charges were framed against the accused for the alleged offence.