S. KANTHARAJU Vs. LAXMI FINANCIERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner as the accused was tried by the Court of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'Trial Court'), in C.C. No. 15991/2011 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 14-10-2014.

(2.) The summary of the case of the complainant-Financier, in the Trial Court is that, the accused availed a loan of a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- from it in two instalments of a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- on 03-04-2009 and another sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 17-07-2009 by depositing the title deeds pertaining to an immovable property and executing a registered simple mortgage deed in favour of the complainant. The accused failed to return the loan amount within the agreed time. However, at the insistence of the complainant for repayment of the loan, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 017834 dated 15-07-2010 for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- in the name of the complainant and drawn on Canara Bank, Kumara Park West Branch, Bangalore. When the said cheque was presented by the complainant for its realisation, the same came to be returned dishonoured with the banker's endorsement 'funds insufficient' and 'exceeds arrangement' vide endorsement dated 22-07-2010. However, at the specific request of the accused, the complainant re-presented the said cheque in the last week of August 2010, which also found the same result of dishonour from the bank with the reason of 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 09-09-2010 through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) as well Under Certificate of Posting (UCP), demanding the payment of the cheque amount. However, the accused instead of paying the cheque amount, sent an untenable reply on 27-09-2010, which constrained the complainant to institute a criminal case against him in the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through his counsel.