UMA Vs. M MAHENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the respondent has remained absent. Though the matter was adjourned on previous occasions to enable the learned Counsel for the respondent to appear, none appears for the respondent. Accordingly, the matter is heard and disposed of.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner was the complainant, who had lodged a case alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for brevity) against the respondent. The same was contested before the trial court and the trial court held that the accused was guilty of the offence punishable under the aforesaid section and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.4,50,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of the fine amount realised, Rs.4,40,000/- was to be paid to the complainant as compensation. This having been challenged in appeal, the lower appellate court has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court. It is this which is under challenge.

(3.) THE learned counsel would point out that firstly, the defence that was urged was that the petitioner did not possess the means to lend a substantial amount to the respondent and the complainant had failed to produce material before the court that she had the sources of income to lend such money and further that the petitioner had not obtained any other document, such as, a Promissory Note from the respondent. The learned counsel would submit that both these preconditions, which the appellate court has thought, were necessary to demonstrate that a case for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act has been established, are not in accordance with law nor is there any such requirement prescribed and therefore, the same was an untenable ground, on which the appeal could have been allowed.