RAMAL Vs. B V SAROJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in C.C.No.333/2002 on the file of JMFC, Hubli has come up in this appeal impugning the order dated 30.01.2009 passed in C.C.No.333/2002, wherein the complaint filed by her is dismissed.

(2.) It is the case of the appellant who is complainant before the JMFC, Hubli is that, she had lent a sum of Rs.80,000/- to the accused who is respondent herein under two transactions, one in a sum of Rs.60,000/-, which was lent on 11.01.1999 and another in a sum of Rs.20,000/- and the date on which the money was lent is not forthcoming from the records. It is stated that the respondent borrowed the aforesaid two loans agreeing to repay the same with interest at 23% p.a. on demand. It is also stated that two demand promissory notes were executed. It is further stated that, when the complainant sought repayment of the amount, a cheque bearing No.628117 dated 21.07.1999 for a sum of Rs.80,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Durgadbail Branch, Hubli in favour of the complainant was issued towards repayment of the loan amount.

(3.) The grievance of the complainant is that, when the aforesaid cheque was presented before the bank, the same was returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds" on 08.09.1999. Thereafter, complainant issued a legal notice to the accused on 22.09.1999 and the same was returned as unserved. It is also stated that the amount shown in the cheque was not paid. Hence, the proceeding was initiated for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, wherein after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and by perusing the documents, case was registered. In that proceeding, the complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and in support of her case, she produced 5 documents, which are marked as Exs.P1 to P5 to substantiate the allegations in the complaint.