MANU R. Vs. LALITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner as the accused was tried by the Court of the learned XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court" ), in Criminal Case No.29533/2015 for the offence punishable under Sec. 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 dtd. 24/9/2016.

(2.) The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court is that, the accused who is the relative of the complainant knowing that the complainant was in need of a site (immovable property), approached her and agreed to secure a site to her. Believing the words of the accused, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.32,50,000.00 to the accused in cash. Thereafter, the accused failed to secure a site to the complainant within the agreed time. When the complainant approached the accused and demanded for return of the amount of Rs.32,50,000.00 paid to her, the accused, towards discharge of her liability to the complainant, issued in total eight (8) cheques, among which, four cheques were drawn on the Karnataka Bank Limited, Basaveshwar Nagar Branch, Bangalore, and bearing Nos.281444, 281445, 281446 and 281447, each for a sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 and all dtd. 14/10/2015. The remaining four cheques were drawn on ICICI Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore, in favour of the complainant and were bearing Nos.320904, 320905, 320906 and 320907, each for a sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 and all dtd. 15/10/2015 (cheque No.320907 which is marked at Exhibit P-7 in the Trial Court shows that the cheque amount is not for a sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 but it is for a sum of Rs.4,50,000.00). It is also further the case of the complainant that, as per the instructions and assurance of the accused, when she presented those cheques for realisation through her banker, four cheques drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited were returned unpaid with the banker's endorsement as "payment stopped by drawer" .

(3.) The accused appeared through her counsel and contested the matter.