DEEPA Vs. N. SUDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the judgment and order acquitting the respondent for the charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act' for short) on a trial held by Addl. CMM, Bangalore City. The appellant who is the complainant before the Trial Court said to have advanced a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - to the respondent and towards repayment of the same, the respondent is said to have issued the cheque dated 19.01.2009 for Rs. 3,00,000/ - drawn on Bank of Muscat, Infantry Road, Bangalore and when the cheque was presented with HDFC Bank with whom the Muscat Bank is merged, the cheque returned with an endorsement of insufficient funds. The appellant issued notice and it was replied by the respondent denying the liability and hence, the appellant filed complaint before the Trial Court to initiate action against the appellant for the charge under Section 138 of NI Act. The respondent appeared and after recording the plea, the appellant was examined as PW 1 and in her evidence documents Exs. P1 to P8 were marked. Statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Respondent was examined as DW 1 and the documents Exs. D1 to D6 were marked. The Trial Court after hearing the counsel for parties and on appreciation of the material on record, has dismissed the complaint by granting an order of acquittal. It is this order that has been challenged in this appeal.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant on interim application for Special leave and also on admission.

(3.) AS could be seen from the material placed on record, according to the complainant cheque is dated 19.01.2009 drawn at Muscat Bank for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ -. The cheque was presented and was dishonored on 15.04.2009. After return of the cheque, notice was issued and it was replied by the respondent in a reply notice at Ex. D4. As could be seen from the defence put forth by the respondent in the Trial Court, it is the specific contention that she had taken a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - much prior to the transaction in question and the cheque in question was signed by her and was offered as a security. She also contended that the amount of Rs. 10,000/ - was paid and though she asked for the cheque, the appellant stated that it was misplaced. Hence, she contended that the appellant has misused the cheque and presented it in the month of April, 2009 by filling the blanks.