RANJITHA BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. CHANDRA SHEKAR RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the complainant is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the XIII Addl. Sessions judge. Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, dated 28-9-2001, in Criminal Appeal No. 15074/2000, wherein the appellate Court has set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the XIV addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 26641/1999 dated 21-6-2000, convicting the respondents-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). The essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows :-

(2.) THE appellants herein filed a complaint against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 before the trial court alleging that the respondents have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. It is the case of the complainants that the accused had received Rs. 6,00,000/- from them promising that a plot of land developed by the accused would be sold to them and subsequently, the complainants came to know that the accused had not developed any land and wherefore, they demanded the accused to return their money and in response to the same, accused No. 2 - respondent herein issued a cheque for Rs. 6,00,000/-on 25-11-1998 in favour of the complainants drawn on Canara Bank, Lalbagh West Gate branch, Bangalore, and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured by the drawee bank for "insufficient funds" on 2-12-1998. The accused were notified about the dishonour of the said cheque for insufficient funds and legal notice was issued and despite legal notice, the accused did not pay the amount of the cheque and wherefore, complaint was filed by the power of attorney holder of the appellants herein.

(3.) AFTER recording the sworn statement of the power of attorney holder, summons was issued to the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and on behalf of the complainants, power of attorney holder was examined as PW1 and he got marked the power of attorney - Ex. P1, cheque ex. P2, intimation issued by the Bank as per exs. P3 and P4 and postal acknowledgment and copy of the legal notice as per Exs. P5 and P6 respectively. On behalf of the accused, accused No. 3 - Sri Manjunath Raju was examined as DW1. The trial court after considering the contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties and the material on record, held that the complainants have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No. 2-respondent herein has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, sentenced the accused No. 2 to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 6,60,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of six months and if the fine amount is recovered from the accused out of Rs. 6,00,000/-, the same shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and acquitted accused Nos. 1 and 3 under section 255 (1) Cr. P. C. , of the offence alleged against them under Section 138 of the act and being aggrieved by the order of conviction, accused No. 2 preferred criminal appeal No. 15074/2000 on the file of the XIII addl. Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, and the appellate Court by judgment dated 28-9-2001, set aside the order of conviction passed against accused No. 2 - appellant before the appellate Court and acquitted accused No. 2 of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act and accordingly, allowed the appeal by judgment dated 28-9-2001 and being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, this appeal is filed by the complainants.