B.D. VIJAYENDRA Vs. B.R. BALAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned trial judge has acquitted the respondent (accused) of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the complainant is before this court. I have heard Sri. H. Malthesh, learned counsel for Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned counsel for complainant.

(2.) IT is the case of complainant that accused and complainant had invested certain amount of money to grow ginger by taking certain lands on lease. In that connection, there were differences between them and a panchayat was held on 14.08.2005. These facts have been admitted by the accused. The accused has admitted that, in the panchayat it was resolved that he shall pay a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/ - to the complainant. The accused has contended that determination of liability by the panchayatdars was not based on proper reasons. In order to obey the panchayatdars, he had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - and another cheque for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ - to the complainant. The accused has contended that he has paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - by depositing the same into the account of complainant on 30.08.2005. Thereafter, the cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - issued by the accused to the complainant was returned to him by the complainant.

(3.) ON perusal of evidence adduced by both parties, the learned trial judge has held that complainant has failed to prove that subsequent to aforestated transactions and panchayat, complainant had sold coffee to the accused and accused has issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ - towards payment of price of coffee.