ABDULSAMAD Vs. SURESH BASAVANT KHANAGOANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the appellant. The counsel for the respondent is absent. The record is perused.

(2.) It is seen that the appellant was the complainant before the court below, alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act', for brevity). It was the case of the complainant that the respondent was engaged in transportation business, along with his brother and he had established an office in the premises belonging to the complainant and they were acquainted with each other. It transpires that the respondent was in need of funds for his business and accordingly, had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- on 3.7.2002 and the same was to be repaid within two days and in discharge of the liability, he had issued a cheque bearing No.75454 dated 4.7.2002 for the said amount. But on presentation of the cheque, it was dishonoured for insufficient funds. Therefore, a notice was duly issued on the accused, which was returned unserved with an endorsement that the party had left and was out of station. The complainant had got issued another notice under Certificate of Posting and by Courier, which was returned with an endorsement that the party had refused. Therefore, the complaint followed. The summons having been served, the respondent had entered appearance through counsel and had contested the proceedings. The appellant examined himself and got marked exhibits, Ex.P.1 to P.9. The respondent had examined himself as DW.1 and had got marked exhibits, Ex.D.1 to D.10. On the basis of the material evidence and the rival contentions, the following points were framed for consideration of the court below:

(3.) Both the points were held in the negative and the accused was convicted. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.