RAJASHEKAR Vs. NIRMALA RAJANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order of acquitting the respondent for the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short] on a trial held by the Addl. C.M.M., Mayo Hall, Bangalore. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: The appellant is the complainant, whereas the respondent is the accused before the trial Court. The appellant is said to have advanced a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the respondent on 05.06.2006 as a hand -loan agreeing to repay the said sum within 4 months. As the amount was not repaid, the appellant is said to have approached the respondent and in turn the respondent is said to have issued a cheque bearing No. 149143 for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on 14.10.2006, drawn on Canara Bank. The cheque was presented for encashment and it returned with endorsement of funds insufficient. The appellant issued a notice and as the notice was not replied, he approached the trial Court and submitted the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. to initiate action against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. After appearance of the respondent, the trial Court recorded the evidence of P.W. 1 and in his evidence, documents Exs. P1 to 10 were got marked. Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The respondent is examined as D.W. 1 and in her evidence, documents Exs. D1 to 12 were got marked. The trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record acquitted the respondent for the said charge. Aggrieved by the Order, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant would contend that the signature on the cheque is admitted and therefore, he submits that a presumption arises under Section 139 of the Act. He also contends that the material placed on record is insufficient to rebut the presumption, and have the acquittal order passed by the trial Court is erroneous and illegal.