RAMESHA Vs. LAKSHMAMMA T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dtd. 4/4/2014 passed in C.C. No. 326/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, whereunder the respondent - accused has been acquitted for offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.I. Act').

(2.) Case of the complainant in brief is, that the respondent - accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 from the complainant for her legal necessity and executed an On Demand Promisory Note and consideration receipt agreeing to repay the same with interest at 2% per month. Inspite of repeated requests and demands, the respondent - accused did not pay the amount borrowed and therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice on 4/10/2010 and it has been served on the respondent - accused on 7/10/2010. After receipt of the said notice, the respondent - accused approached the complainant and issued a cheque bearing No. 083077 dtd. 23/10/2010 drawn on State Bank of Mysuru, Hunsur Branch for a sum of Rs.2,52,000.00. Said cheque, on presentation, came to be dishonoured for insufficient funds. The complainant got issued legal notice on 20/11/2010 and it has been served on the respondent - accused. As the respondent - accused did not pay the cheque amount, the complainant has filed a complaint. After recording the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the respondent - accused for offence under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act and a case came to be registered in C.C. No. 326/2011. Plea of the respondent - accused came to be recorded. The complainant, in order to prove his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. Statement of the respondent - accused came to bee recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. The respondent - accused examined herself as D.W.1 and examined one witness as D.W.2 and got marked one document as Ex.D.1. After hearing arguments on both sides, learned Magistrate formulated points for consideration and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal. Said judgment of acquittal has been challenged by the complainant in this appeal.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for appellant - complainant and learned counsel for respondent - accused.