N.H. PANCHAKSHARI Vs. H.N. SOWBHAGYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is filed challenging the Judgment dated 15.12.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge at Hassan in Crl. A. No. 23/2008 dismissing the appeal filed against the order dated 24.1.2008 passed by Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Arsikere in C.C. No. 537/2004, in which the learned Magistrate was pleased to convict the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and to sentence him to undergo S.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for a period of three months with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/ - to the complainant. It is the case of the Complainant that the accused has issued cheque bearing No. 456160 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - on 25.5.2004; cheque bearing No. 456161 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - on 10.6.2004 and cheque bearing No. 456162 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - on 10.6.2004. The cheques issued in favour of the Complainant when presented for payment were dishonoured for want of 'Sufficient funds'. Thereafter, the Complainant has issued a notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act both by way of R.P.A.D. and Certificate of Posting. While the notice sent by Certificate of posting was served on the petitioner, the notice sent by R.P.A.D. has been returned with endorsement "Not Claimed". Hence, returned to sender as per Ex. P8. Thereafter, the Complainant has filed this complaint before this Court.

(2.) THE trial Court took cognizance of the offence and issued process to the accused. Thereafter, the accused appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty to the accusations made against him. The complainant examined herself as PW. 1 and produced documents as per Exs. P1 to P12. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. He has stated that he has given a blank cheque in favour of one Jagadeesh. The said blank cheque was misused by the Complainant and presented before the Court. The accused has thereafter examined himself as DW. 1 and one M. Shivakumar as DW. 2 and one Sathyanarayana as DW. 3 and produced Exs. D1 to D3. The trial Court after hearing the Complainant and the accused held that the complainant has proved the case against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge at Hassan in Crl. A. No. 23/2008.

(3.) HEARD Sri K.J. Sagar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though the matter was posted for final hearing, Counsel for the respondent and the Respondent are absent.