LAKSHMI SUBRAMANYA Vs. B V NAGESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the parties to these two appeals are common and since the facts are inter linked as also since common questions of law and fact arise for consideration, these two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In these two appeals filed on grant of special leave under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., the common appellant-complainant has questioned the legality and correctness of the independent but identical judgments dated 4.2.2006 passed by XIII Additional CMM, Bangalore in C.C. Nos. 1608/2003 and 1609/2003, acquitting the common respondent-accused of the charge levelled against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). For the sake of convenience, during the course of this judgment, I shall refer the parties with reference to their ranking in the trial Court.

(2.) The common complainant-Lakshmi Subramanya filed two private complaints alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act against the common accused. In C.C. No. 1608/2003, the complainant inter alia contended that for discharge of his liability towards the complainant, the accused issued 3 cheques bearing Nos. 689235, 689236 and 689237 each for Rs. 1 Lakh all dated 11.12.2002 drawn on Canara Bank, Stock Exchange Branch, Bangalore in favour of the complainant assuring that the cheques so issued would be honoured on presentation; that when the complainant presented those cheques through her Banker Janatha Co-operative Bank Limited, Bangalore, on 24.12.2002, all the cheques were returned unpaid on 27.12.2002 on the ground "funds insufficient and payment stopped by the drawer"; that the complainant received the intimation regarding dishonour of the cheques from her Bank on 30.12.2002 and on 7.1.2003, she got issued notice of demand to the accused informing the accused about return of the cheques unpaid and called upon him to pay the amounts covered under the cheques; that though the accused received the said notice, has failed to comply with the demand made therein and instead has sent an untenable reply.

(3.) Upon service of summons, the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate in both the cases and pleaded not guilty for the accusation made against him and claimed to be tried. The husband of the complainant viz., C.P. Subramanya, as power of attorney holder of the complainant was examined as PW.1 in both the cases. The complainant placed reliance on documentary evidence as per Exs.P.1 to P. 15 in both the cases. During his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. In his defence, the accused summoned the complainant Lakshmi Subramanya as his witness and examined her as DW. 1. In addition, he got himself examined as DW.2 in both the cases. He relied on documentary evidence Exs.D. 1 to D. 14.