VEERAPPA Vs. B. A. CHADRAMOULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the complainant before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC at Yadgiri (hereinafter for short, referred to as 'trial Court') has filed this appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 19.11.2015 passed by the trial Court in C.C. No. 427/2011.

(2.) In order to avoid confusion, the parties herein are referred with their original ranks before the trial Court.

(3.) The brief facts leading to this case are that, the appellant/complainant has filed a complaint against the respondent/accused under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the accused has committed an offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( for short, 'N.I. Act'). The complainant contended that, he and accused are good friends and they are doing business and during business transaction, the accused has on so many occasions, has taken hand loan from the complainant as and when required and returned. It is further alleged that, on one such occasion, i.e., on 10.01.2011, the accused obtained hand loan of Rs.12,15,000/- for the purpose of higher education of his daughter by name Dhatri, as she was studying in Germany and he promised the complainant to return the loan amount in six months. But, he failed to return the loan amount. After six months, when the complainant demanded to repay the loan amount, the accused started post-poning the matter on one or other pretext and finally the accused has issued a post-dated cheque bearing No.702891 for Rs.12,15,000/- mentioning the date as 12.07.2011, drawn on Canara Bank Branch, Hanumanthnagar Branch, Bangalore, pertaining to his account. Then the complainant has presented the said cheque on 12.07.2011 in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Gurumitkal Branch and the said cheque returned on 12.08.2011 with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Then the complainant made a demand for payment of cheque amount of Rs.12,15,000/- through Lawyer's notice dated 24.08.2011, which was sent by registered post. The accused did not comply the demand and hence, it is alleged that the complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act.