RAVINDRA BHIMAPPA HOSAMANI Vs. RAVINDRANATH SANGAPPA SHETTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The appellant was the complainant alleging an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act', for brevity). It was the case of the complainant that he is engaged in agricultural business and that the respondent accused was known to him and the respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 3.7.1999, with an assurance that the amount would be repaid in a short while, but there was default. Therefore, when further demands were made for repayment, he had issued a cheque for Rs.25,000/- dated 6.9.1999, which when presented for collection, was returned dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused. Therefore, after issuance of necessary notice under section 138 of the NI Act, a complaint was filed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant would point out that the cheque being issued on the account of the respondent is not disputed nor is the signature of the respondent denied on the cheque in question. The contention was that there was no transaction between the appellant and the respondent and that the cheque, in fact, had been issued in some other transaction to one Basavaraj , who in turn, handed it over to Mallikarjun Isri. This had been endorsed on the counter foil of the cheque book and therefore, on the evidence of the concerned persons, the court below has accepted the defence and held that the cheque was misused by the complainant and that there was no transaction as between the complainant and the accused and has reversed the judgment, which is not tenable.