G EKANTAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Legality or the correctness of taking cognizance and issuing summons to the revision-petitioner on November 30, 1994 by the Munsiff and JMFC, Hadagali, District of Bellary in a criminal case instituted on a private complaint by second respondent for an offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is challenged in this revision petition. The revision-petitioner is the accused, second respondent is the complainant and the first respondent is the State of Karnataka. Hereinafter I refer to the parties as they are described in the private complaint for the purpose of convenience.

(2.) Few facts relevant for the disposal of this revision may be stated thus :- It appears the accused had taken hand loan of Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant for his contract work on October 4, 1993 promising him to repay on demand. When the complainant demanded for repayment of the amount, accused issued a cheque bearing No. 124453 dated January 18, 1994 in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 30,000/drawn on Bellary District Central Cooperative Bank, Harapanahalli Branch. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment and on April 19, 1994, the cheque was bounced with an endorsement "refer to drawer". Then again the complainant presented the cheque on 15-7-1994 and it was bounced on the same day with an endorsement "refer to drawer". Therefore, the complainant sent a notice dated July 16, 1994 by registered post acknowledgement due requesting the accused to make payment within 15 days and that was served on the accused on July 19, 1994. The accused did not either reply or made payment within 15 days and therefore on September 2, 1994 complaint was filed in the Court for an offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant, marked the documents Ex.P-1 to P-4 and by the impugned order dated November 30, 1994 issued summons to the accused for appearance by January 4, 1995. This order is under challenge.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, second respondent and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-1 State present.