MDN ENTERPRISES Vs. LOKESH E

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner which is a proprietorship concern represented by its proprietor Mr.Doulat Basha, was the accused in C.C.No.1049/2011 and C.C.No.1051/2011, both in the court of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikmagalur (henceforth for brevity referred to as the 'Trial Court') for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (henceforth for brevity referred to as the 'N.I.Act').

(2.) The summary of the case of the complainant in C.C.No.1051/2011 from which the Criminal Revision Petition No.219/2018 has arisen was that the accused was a person known to him, availed a loan of Rs.2,50,000.00 from the complainant for the purpose of his business improvement and towards repayment of the said loan amount, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.251909 dtd. 18/10/2010 drawn on State Bank of India, Chikkamagalur branch, for a sum of Rs.2,50,000.00 in favour of the complainant therein. However, when the said cheque was presented for its realization, the same returned unpaid with the bankers memo 'Account Closed'. In spite of service of notice upon the accused demanding payment of the cheque amount, since the accused did not meet the demand, the complainant was constrained to institute criminal case against him in the Trial Court in C.C.No.1051/2011 for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act.

(3.) The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court in C.C.No.No.1049/2011 was that the accused who was a person known to him for the purpose of his business improvement had availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000.00 from him and towards the repayment of the said amount, he issued a cheque bearing No.251914 dtd. 29/11/2010 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 drawn on State Bank of India, Chikkamagalur branch. The said cheque when presented for its realization by the complainant, was returned unpaid with the bankers endorsement 'Account Closed'. In spite of the complainant giving a notice to the accused demanding the repayment of the cheque amount, since the accused failed to meet the said demand, the complainant was constrained to institute criminal case against him in the Trial Court in C.C.No.No.1049/2011 for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I.Act.