N CHIKKAMMA Vs. S K VINOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging commission of an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act by the respondent having been dismissed by the learned Magistrate, the complainant filed this appeal.

(2.) Sri.M.R.Balakrishna, learned advocate for the appellant contended that the learned trial Judge has committed error and illegality in dismissing the complaint. He submitted that the respondent having not produced any cogent evidence to rebut the presumption envisaged under Section 139 of N.I.Act, the learned trial Judge is unjustified in dismissing the complaint. Learned counsel contended that the impugned judgment being perverse and illegal, interference is called for.

(3.) Learned advocate for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the case of the complainant/ appellant being inconsistent and there being attempts made to improve the case from stage to stage ie., from the stage of issue of notice and till the date of adducing of evidence, the learned trial Judge is justified in not raising presumption and in dismissing the complaint. Learned counsel pointed out that despite the accused deposing before the court below as DW-1, nothing has been elicited to bring home the case as sought to be made out in the complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act. Learned counsel made submissions in support of the finding in the impugned judgment and sought dismissal of the appeal.