SHRUTHI SHIVKUMAR Vs. AMITH A BATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed by the accused under Sec. 397 r/w Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 8/3/2018 passed by the 15th ACMM Court, Bengaluru, in CC No.7927/2016, which was confirmed by the LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.602/2018 vide judgment dtd. 26/7/2019.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

(3.) The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, the complainant-Mr. Amith A. Batra and accused- Smt.Shruthi are known to each other since last two years. The accused is the Proprietor of M/s. Checks and Stripes and for her business purpose, she approached the complainant and borrowed a sum of Rs.2.00 Lakhs on 7/10/2014 by executing a On-demand Promissory Note and Consideration Receipt, It is further asserted that, in discharge of the said legally enforceable debt, the accused has issued two cheques dtd. 20/8/2015 and 20/9/2015 for a sum of Rs.1.00 each drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Vignana Nagar Branch, Bengaluru. When the said cheques were presented, they were dishonoured for Insufficient funds. Hence, the complainant got issued a legal notice through his Advocate on 19/1/2016 and notice was served on accused. But, the notice sent to her original address was returned as 'not claimed'. It is asserted that in spite of service of notice, the cheque amount was not repaid and hence, the complainant through his Power of Attorney Holder- Mr. P.Ashok Kumar has filed a private complaint for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has recorded the sworn statement of Power of Attorney Holder and found that there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused and taken cognizance and issued process against the accused. The accused appeared through her counsel and was enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers were furnished to the counsel appearing for the accused. The plea under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act is framed and the same was red-over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.