LAWS(KAR)-2021-8-139

SIKANDAR BABALAL MAHAT Vs. MAHABUBSAB R. HSAMANI

Decided On August 04, 2021
Sikandar Babalal Mahat Appellant
V/S
Mahabubsab R. Hsamani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant for setting aside the judgment of acquittal dtd. 28/3/2012 passed in CC No.479/2006 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramdurg (for short, hereinafter referred as the 'trial Court') and sought for convicting the respondent/accused herein for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. Act').

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

(3.) The complainant/appellant has filed a complaint under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent/accused herein for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. The allegations were that the complainant is well- acquainted with the accused as they are friends from past six to seven years and the accused is a contractor by profession and the complainant is a painter in Ramdurg Taluk. The accused used to take and return hand-loans from the complainant whenever he needed and on 13/12/2005, the accused requested the complainant to lend Rs.1,20,000.00 to him to meet his financial difficulties assuring to repay it after four to five months. Then the complainant has asked him time of one week and on 7/1/2006 he lent Rs.90,000.00 to the accused, as he is able to adjust that much amount only. It is also alleged that the accused agreed to repay it on or before 10/6/2006. But, after the said period, the accused did not return the said amount and on a request made by the complainant, he issued a cheque drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Ramdurg dtd. 3/8/2006 for Rs.90,000.00 in favour of the complainant. On presentation of the said cheque, it was returned back with an endorsement 'Insufficient Funds' on 5/8/2006. The complainant has informed this aspect to the accused. But, as the accused did not respond, he issued a legal notice on 9/8/2006. Even then, as the accused failed to repay the cheque amount, the complainant filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act.