H. SATHYANARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE H.M. HANUMA REDDY MAJOR R/AT:CHINNAPPANAHALLI, MARATHALLI POST, BANGALORE Vs. SHRI V. CHINNAPPA S/O B.VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO. 124 VENKATAPPA COLONY B. NARAYANAPURA DOORAVANINAGAR POST BANGALORE-56

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.2.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Bangalore in Crl.A.No. 1076/04 allowing the said appeal and reversing the judgment of conviction and order of Sentence dated 12.10.2004 passed by the XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and XXII ASCJ in C.C.No. 27346/2000 convicting the respondent -accused of the charge levelled against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'N.I. Act).

(2.) THE appellant filed complaint against the respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of NT. Act inter alia contending that, the complainant and the accused are known to each other; that the accused approached the complainant for a hand loan of Rs. 2 lakhs; that on 15.4.2000, the complainant paid the said amount in cash to the accused as hand loan and the accused undertook to repay the same and accordingly, issued a cheque bearing No. 153595 dated 20.4.2000 for Rs. 2 lakhs in favour of the complainant, drawn on Union Bank of India; that on presentation, the said cheque was returned with an endorsement "Insufficient funds"; that the complainant got issued a legal notice on the accused informing him about the return of the cheque unpaid and called upon him to pay the amount covered under the cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice; that the notice sent under RPAD was returned 'as not claimed' while the notice sent through certificate of posting is received by the accused; that in spite of service of notice. The accused failed to pay the amount covered under the said cheque, as such, he is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) I have heard Sri Prakash T. Hebbar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G.L.Vishwanath, learned counsel for the respondent. I have perused the records secured from the Courts below as well as the judgment of the Courts below.