MAYA D. BHAT Vs. H.P. RATHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of acquittal dated 3rd July 2009 passed by the I Additional JMFC, Bagalkot, in C.C. No. 1013/2006 is called in question in this appeal by the appellant/complainant.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant presented before the Trial Court a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein it is stated that the complainant had contributed towards the chit fund which was run by the accused in her residence at Bangalore from 10th October 2003 up to May 10, 2005 for an amount of Rs. 10,000/ - which was sent to the accused through MT (money transfer) from her SB Account No. 13002 of Vijaya Bank, Bagalkot Branch. The complainant was to get the entire amount of the said chit fund by 10th May 2005 and to that effect the accused had issued a postdated cheque for Rs. 1,88,150/ -, bearing No. 017970 of Vijaya Bank branch Bangalore, in favour of the complainant and the accused had issued the said cheque to discharge her liability. After the receipt of the said cheque the complainant presented the cheque to Vijaya Bank, Bagalkot Branch, for encashment but the said cheque was returned dishonoured by Vijaya Bank Branch, Bangalore on the ground of 'stop payment'. After the receipt of the said endorsement, the complainant issued the statutory notice on 1.07.2015 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. The said notice was served on the accused on 16.07.2005, and the reply through an advocate for the accused was sent on 18.07.2005. The contents of the reply notice are imaginary and created one. The accused committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and is liable to be punished as provided under the law.

(3.) AFTER considering the pleadings as well as the other materials placed on record, ultimately, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant had failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant/complainant is before this Court.