R. BASAVARAJU Vs. G.N. NARAYANA SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner has filed this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.26594/2011 dtd. 25/10/2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) which is confirmed by the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-58) in Crl.A.25150/2013 dtd. 23/7/2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short).

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.

(3.) The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that, the complainant and accused are friends and well known to each other. Accused approached and requested the complainant for hand loan of Rs.1,75,000.00 for his urgent family necessities. The complainant paid the same on 14/3/2010 by way of cash to the accused. Accused agreed to repay the same within six months with interest. On the same day the accused issued six cheques bearing No.459792 for Rs.25,000.00 and No.459794 dtd. 22/9/2010 for Rs.50,000.00 drawn on Canara Bank, HAL II Stage, Bangalore, cheques bearing No.114804 dtd. 20/9/2010 for Rs.25,000.00, No.114803 dtd. 22/9/2010 for Rs.20,000.00, No.114806 dtd. 24/9/2010 for Rs.20,000.00 and No.114802 dtd.. 25/9/2010 for Rs.35,000.00 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Frazer Town Branch, Bangalore. As per the instructions of the accused, he presented all the cheques for encashment through Andhra Bank, INR Branch, Bangalore, but they were returned with an endorsement as "Account Closed/Funds Insufficient". Accordingly, he got issued legal notice to the accused dtd. 18/10/2010 through RPAD and UCP. Notice sent through RPAD and UCP to the residential address was returned with a postal shara "incomplete address". Notice sent to the office address was served personally upon the accused, but he failed to make payment of cheque amount within the stipulated period and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Therefore, he filed the complaint.