USHADEVI Vs. H. NARASIMHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned trial Judge has acquitted respondent -accused of an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Therefore, the complainant is before this Court. It is averred in the complaint that complainant was a proprietrix of M/s. Sandeep Traders, Savarline Road, Shivamogga. The accused was due in a sum of Rs. 2,12,837/ - being outstanding dues in respect of transactions which he had with the firm M/s. Sandeep Traders, of which complainant was the proprietrix. In order to repay aforesaid amount, accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,12,937/ - dated 15.11.2001 drawn in favour of complainant. On presentation, cheque was dishonoured.

(2.) IN the affidavit examination -in -chief filed by complainant, it is stated that accused was a customer of the shop, he had transaction and had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,12,937/ - from the complainant, which complainant had received from her father. The accused had borrowed the aforesaid sum for improving his lands. The complainant having stated in the complaint that the accused had transactions with M/s. Sandeep Traders of which complainant was proprietrix, has given altogether different version that complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,12,937/ -. It was a loan transaction. The figure narrated in the complaint and deposed by complainant i.e. Rs. 2,12,937/ - itself would create a suspicion about loan transaction. The complainant has not deposed the circumstances which compelled her to lend a sum of Rs. 2,12,937/ - to accused. The complainant having stated that accused become due in a sum of Rs. 2,12,937/ - on account of transactions which he had with the firm had failed to produce documentary evidence such as invoices and bills. Therefore, she has given a different version that the aforestated sum of Rs. 2,12,937/ - was lent by complainant to accused. Assuming that complainant had lent money to accused, the complainant has not stated the compelling circumstances under which she had lent money to accused. The complainant was proprietrix of M/s. Sandeep Traders. She had maintained books of accounts. If she had lent money to accused, she would have definitely reflected the same in books of accounts.