RITA THOMAS Vs. THIRUPALLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The respondent having been acquitted by the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, this appeal was filed.

(2.) The dishonoured cheque, marked as Ex. P-1, was returned by the Bank with endorsements, as at Exs. P-2 and P-3, on the ground "not drawn on us". After the cheque was returned for the aforesaid reason, demand notice vide Ex. P-4 was sent to the respondent and the payment having not been made, private complaint under Section 200, Cr. P. C., alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act was filed against the respondent. With reference to the sworn statement and the marked documents, cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act was taken and C.C. No. 27057/2012 was registered by the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. In response to the summons, the accused having appeared, denied the accusation. Hence, trial was conducted, wherein, the complainant got herself examined as PW.1 and marked 6 documents, as Exs. P-1 to P-6. The accused was examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C. and it is a case of denial. The accused got herself examined as DW.1 and marked a document, as Ex. D-1. With reference to the said materials and the rival contentions, the aforesaid judgment was passed on 02.06.2014.

(3.) Learned advocate for the appellant did not dispute the fact that the cheque, marked as Ex. P-1, was dishonoured by the Bank on two occasions and on both occasions, the endorsements were issued vide Exs. P-2 and P-3 to the effect "not drawn on us". One of the reasons which has made the learned Magistrate to acquit the accused is that the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as having not been made out.