M.S.YOJAN Vs. PANDURANGAVITALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 19/8/2019 in C.C.No.316/2015 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Nagamangala and its confirmation judgment and order dtd. 27/11/2019 in Crl.A.No.110/2019 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, has filed this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner / accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I Act').

(2.) The rank of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience.

(3.) It is the case of the complainant that, the complainant and accused were known to each other and they were friends. The accused had approached the complainant for financial assistance to develop the textile business. As per the averments of the complaint, the accused said to have borrowed a sum of Rs.2,30,000.00 on 20/12/2014 and assured that he would repay the said amount within three weeks. After several demands having been made by the complainant, the accused said to have issued a cheque for the said amount by mentioning the date as 13/4/2015 and requested the complainant to present it for encashment. As per the instruction, the said cheque was presented for encashment, however, the cheque came to be dishonoured with a shara as "funds insufficient" on 17/4/2015. The said intimation was given to the accused orally, the accused had requested the complainant to present it once again after giving information regarding presentation of the said cheque. After 1 1/2 months, the accused had informed the complainant to present it for encashment, however, again the said cheque came to be dishonoured with the shara as "funds insufficient" on 23/6/2015. After receiving the intimation from the Bank, a legal notice was issued by the complainant on 8/7/2015 through RPAD. The said notice was served on 9/7/2015. Despite receipt of legal notice, the accused has neither replied the said notice nor repaid the amount which he had borrowed from the complainant. Hence, it is constrained the complainant to lodge a complaint before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.