H RAMASANJEEVAIAH Vs. GOVINDARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of acquittal passed by the Fast Track Court, Bangalore, in Criminal Appeal No.281/2009, dated 30th September 2010.

(2.) According to the complainant, accused has issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore, in favour of complainant towards discharge of legal debt. On presentation, the cheque came to be dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. After following due procedures as contemplated under the Negotiable Instruments Act, complaint came to be filed in

(3.) Before the trial Court, in support of the case of the complainant, two witnesses were examined and 8 documents were got marked. On behalf of accused, one witness was examined and 14 documents were got marked. Accused pleaded not guilty. After hearing, the trial Court by its order dated 2nd March 2009, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced him to pay Rs.5,75,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and out of the fine amount, Rs.5,65,000/- was awarded as compensation to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be confiscated. Against which, accused preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.281/2009 before the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bangalore. In his reasoning, the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rangappa vs- Mohan, 2010 AIR(SC) 1898 wherein it is held that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of preponderance of probabilities. Stating that complainant has not proved his case, the Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused, allowing the appeal. Hence, this appeal by the complainant.