NARASIMHA MURTHY Vs. AJAY KUMAR MANVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petitioner as accused No.1 along with accused No.2 were arraigned as accused in C.C.No.33976/2010, in the Court of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court"), for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the N.I. Act "). The Trial Court acquitted the accused No.2 but convicted accused No.1 (present petitioner) for the said offence by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dtd. 26/12/2012. Aggrieved by the same, the present petitioner (accused No.1) preferred a Criminal Appeal, in the Court of the Fast Track (Sessions) Judge-V, Bangalore City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Sessions Judge's Court") in Criminal Appeal No.21/2013. The appeal was contested by the respondent who was the complainant in the Trial Court. The Sessions Judge's Court in its order dtd. 27/4/2013 dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court dtd. 26/12/2012 in C.C.No.33976/2010.

(2.) The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court was that, he is a Doctor by profession and knows both accused No.1 and accused No.2 since several years who are his relatives. During the month of July 2007, the accused No.1 and accused No.2 requested him for a financial help of a sum of Rs.15,00,000.00 to meet their family necessities and for business purposes. At their request, he paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 in cash on three occasions during the months of July 2007, November 2007 and September 2008, in all a sum of Rs.15,00,000.00 as a hand loan. The accused persons had agreed to repay the said loan amount within one and a half years from the date of borrowing. When he approached them for repayment of the said land amount, they postponed the repayment for one or the other reason and finally when repayment was demanded vehemently, the accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.15,00,000.00 bearing No.648882 dtd. 20/4/2010 drawn on the Syndicate Bank, Tilak Nagar Branch, Bangalore and asked him to present the said cheque. Accordingly, when he presented the said cheque for its encashment, the same came to be returned un-paid with the banker's endorsement as "Exceeds arrangement". The complainant has further stated that he intimated the dishonour of the said cheque to the accused, who asked him to re-present the said cheque. Accordingly, he re-presented the said cheque on the dates 24/4/2010 and 3/5/2010, however, on both the occasions, the said cheque came to be returned un-paid with the same endorsement as "Exceeds arrangement". Thereafter, he got issued a legal notice to the accused persons asking them to repay the loan amount. In spite of service of notice upon them on the date 19/5/2010, the accused persons failed to pay the cheque amount, which constrained the complainant to institute a criminal case in the Trial Court against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) Both the accused persons appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through their counsel. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, to prove his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-14 and closed his side. However, on behalf of the accused persons, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked.