H.S. VENUGOPALA REDDY Vs. M. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner as the accused was tried by the Court of the XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate: at Bangalore City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court"), in Criminal Case No.30677/2005, for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the N.I. Act ") and was convicted for the said offence by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dtd. 4/6/2009.

(2.) The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court was that, the complainant and the accused are known to each other since about 20 to 25 years. They are relatives by blood. During the month of August-2004, the accused borrowed hand loan of a sum of '95,000/- from the complainant, to meet his family commitments, and had agreed to repay the said loan amount within four to five months, together with interest thereupon at the rate of '2% per month. In that regard, the accused had issued post- dated cheque bearing No.793847 dtd. 15/1/2005, for a sum of '95,000/-, drawn on Syndicate Bank, Puttanachetty Road, Bangalore, in the month of January-2005. As advised by the accused, the complainant presented the said cheque for its encashment, however, the same came to be returned with the banker's endorsement "Funds insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice dtd. 28/6/2005 to the accused, both under the Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) and Under Certificate of Posting (UCP). Upon receipt of the legal notice, the accused sent a reply through his counsel, denying the liability of the cheque amount. Since the accused did not pay the cheque amount, the complainant was constrained to file a criminal case against him in C.C.No.30677/2005, in the Trial Court, for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through his counsel. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, as such, the Trial Court proceeded to record the evidence. To prove his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-10 and closed his side. The accused got himself examined as DW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.D-1 to D-7, in his support.