RAGHUNATH GOWDA Vs. C.RAJAVENKATESHWARALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner as the accused was tried by the Court of the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate: at Bangalore City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court"), in Criminal Case No.10775/2009, 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. 13/7/2011. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred a Criminal Appeal, in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-12, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Sessions Judge's Court") in Criminal Appeal No.571/2011. The appeal was contested by the respondent who was the complainant in the Trial Court. The Sessions Judge's Court in its judgment and order dtd. 6/3/2012, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court dtd. 13/7/2011 in C.C.No.10775/2009. Aggrieved by the impugned judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by both the Courts, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court was that, the accused who was a person known to him was borrowing money now and then from him. Accordingly, as on 10/1/2008, the accused was paid with a total sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 by him and all the amounts were paid in cash only. Though the accused had assured to repay the entire amount within two months, he did not repay it, as such, when repayment was insisted by the complainant, the accused gave him a cheque bearing No.720175 dtd. 16/11/2008, drawn on Canara Bank, Gokula Branch, Bangalore, in favour of the complainant, for a sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 towards discharge of his liability. The said cheque, when presented for its realisation by the complainant through his banker, came to be returned unpaid with the banker's endorsement "funds insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused, demanding the payment of the cheque amount. In spite of the receipt of the legal notice, the accused did not pay the cheque amount, rather sent an untenable reply. This constrained the complainant to institute a criminal case against the accused, 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-6 and closed his side. The accused got himself examined as DW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.D-1 to D-1(b), in his support.