K. YASHODA W/O NAGESH AGE: 42 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. CHITWADIGI, BEHIND MOOKAMBIKA TEMPLE, HOSPET, BELLARY DISTRICT Vs. K. VENKATESH S/O. HONNURAPPA AGE: 37 YEARS, PEON, CITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, HOSPET, BELLARY DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the complainant before trial Court in C.C. No.519/2011 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Hospet. The said complaint was filed under Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity) for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act' for brevity) against the respondent herein. The said complaint was contested by accused and after a full-fledged trial, the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the above said offence by giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.

(2.) The appellant has contended before this Court that the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused only on technical ground that the cheque was filled up by the complainant with regard to date and amount mentioned in the cheque. He further contends that when a blank cheque was issued by accused, he gave an authority to the holder of cheque to fill up the same to the tune of existing debt or liability on the part of accused. Therefore, Sec. 20 of the N.I. Act has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. Therefore, the order of trial Court is erroneous. He further contends before this Court that the accused has admitted to have taken a loan of INR 10,000.00 and as a security for the said loan he has issued the disputed cheque and it is his case that subsequently the said cheque was wrongly filled up by the complainant for INR 95,000.00. Therefore, the presumption under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act ought to have been drawn in favour of the complainant and the accused has to rebut the same by means of preponderance of probabilities by showing to the Court with convincing and cogent evidence that he was only due for a sum of INR 10,000.00, but instead of that an amount of INR 95,000.00 was wrongly filled up by the complainant. Therefore, he contends that trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. Hence, he pleads for allowing of the appeal and to convict the accused for the above said offence. Though the respondent is served, he remained absent before this Court.

(3.) I have carefully perused the complaint averments, judgment of the trial Court and the evidence recorded by trial Court. It is an undisputed fact by the accused that he has given a blank cheque in favour of the complainant as a security for the repayment of a loan amount of INR 10,000.00. Therefore, issuance of blank cheque is not in dispute. The question is that, whether the complainant has shown to the Court that an amount of INR 95,000.00 was due by the accused.