K.M.NAGARAJU Vs. N.SUBRAMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant -complainant praying to set aside the judgment of acquittal dtd. 15/3/2014 passed in C.C.No.27435/2011 by the V Additional Small Causes Judge and 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court of Small Causes, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru wherein the respondent-accused has been acquitted for offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as "N.I. Act" for brevity).

(2.) It is the case of the appellant -complainant that, respondent-accused was his friend and during December-2009, respondent -accused approached him and requested hand loan of Rs.10,50,000.00 to meet his urgent requirement agreeing to repay the same within few months. As per the said request of the respondent - accused, appellant -complainant paid hand loan Rs.10,50,000.00 by way of cash and cheques on various dates. The respondent -accused has also executed an 'On Demand Promissory Note' in favour of the appellant - complainant as a collateral security acknowledging the receipt of loan amount. As the respondent -accused did not repay the amount borrowed, the appellant - complainant insisted him to repay the loan amount and accordingly, the respondent -accused has issued a cheque for sum of Rs.10,50,000.00 dtd. 3/3/2011 infavour of the appellant -complainant. When the appellant - complainant represented the same for encashment through his bankers, cheque was dishonoured with endorsement "Funds Insufficient" on 4/3/2011. The appellant -complainant issued legal notice dtd. 14/3/2011 by RPAD and also by certificate of posting. The notice issued through RPAD returned with an endorsement as "Not Claimed" and notice issued under certificate posting has been served on the respondent - accused. As respondent -accused did not pay the cheque amount inspite of service of notice, the appellant - complainant initiated proceedings against respondent - accused for offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act.

(3.) In order to prove the case, the appellant - complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The respondent -accused has been examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on his side. The trial Court after hearing the arguments on both sides and appreciating evidence on record, acquitted the respondent -accused for offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act by the impugned judgment, which is challenged in this appeal.