SANGAMESHWAR CHITS PVT LTD Vs. G R MARIGOUDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) The appellant was the complainant before the Court below alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I.Act', for brevity). The complainant is a private limited company carrying on business in Chit Fund and is registered under the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for brevity) and that the respondent was a member of a group participating in a chit fund and towards payment of installment due, the respondent is said to have issued a cheque dated 12.04.2003, for a sum of Rs.1,16,760/- drawn on Malaprabha Grameena Bank, Navalgund Taluk. The cheque when presented for collection through its banker was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, in the account of the respondent, as notified by the banker by a memo dated 10.05.2003. The complainant had then issued a legal notice by a registered post as required under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, and since the respondent failed to comply with the demand, had followed with the complaint. The respondent had entered appearance on service of summons and had contested the matter. The complainant had examined himself as a witness in support of the complaint. The statement of the respondent-accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity). The Court below had framed the following points for consideration:

(3.) The Court below held the same in the affirmative and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act., and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and also to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.1,16,760/- within 30 days, and in the event of failure to pay such compensation, the Deputy Commissioner was directed to recover the compensation amount as arrears of Land Revenue and to pay the same to the complainant. That having been challenged in appeal, the Appellate Court, however, had taken a view that the amount due to the appellant was a time barred debt, and therefore, the cheque issued in discharge of such a debt was not a legally enforceable debt, and hence, the same was also not enforceable, and allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court below and acquitted the accused. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.