R. HANUMANTHARAYA Vs. A. P. KRISHNAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner as the accused was tried by the Court of the learned XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court"), in Criminal Case No.3800/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the N.I. Act") and was convicted for the said offence by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 10-04-2017.

(2.) The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court was that, the complainant knew the accused and they were close friends since several years. The accused faced acute shortage of funds for domestic needs and for his business purposes. As such, he availed a loan of a sum of Rs.7,75,000/- from the complainant in the month of March-2014 and agreed to repay the same within a period of one year. The said loan was given to the accused by the complainant on various dates through cheques as shown below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_20_LAWS(KAR)6_2021_1.html</FRM> All the above cheques were drawn on Corporation Bank, Vidyaranyapura Branch, Bengaluru. In addition to the above, a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was also paid by the complainant to the accused by way of cash in the month of December-2014. On demand for repayment of the loan amount given by the complainant, the accused towards discharge of his liability, issued a cheque bearing No.155870, in favour of the complainant dated 11-12-2015, for a sum of Rs. 7,75,000/-, drawn on the State Bank of India, Wilson Garden Branch, Bengaluru. The said cheque, when presented for its realisation by the complainant, came to be returned unpaid with the banker's endorsement dated 15-12-2015 as "Exceeds arrangement". After the dishonour of the said cheque, the accused paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant through cheque dated 19-12-2015. Since the remaining balance amount was not paid by the accused, the complainant got issued a statutory demand notice to the accused dated 21-12-2015 which was duly served upon the accused. In spite of the service of legal notice, the accused failed to repay the balance amount of the loan amount due to the complainant, which constrained the complainant to institute a criminal case against the accused in the Trial Court in C.C.No.3800/2016.

(3.) The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through his counsel. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, as such, the Trial Court proceeded to record the evidence wherein, to prove his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-8 and closed his side. The accused got examined one Sri.D. Krishnappa, but did not produce any documents in his support.