M SENGUTTUVAN Vs. MAHADEVASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the complainant is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by 16th Addl. CMM, Bangalore dated 7-8-2002 in CC. No. 35130/2000 acquitting the respondent of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act (for short 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE essential facts of the Case leading upto this appeal with referene to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows: the appellant herein filed complaint under Section 200 Cr. PC, describing himself as the Managing Partner and GPA holder of M/s. Lotus Finance against the respondent alleging that respondent had borrowed loan from the compalinant and issued two cheques for rs. 25,000/- each en-cashable on 2-3-2000. When the said cheques were presented for payment they were dishonoured with the endorsement "insufficient fund" and thereafter the complainant issued notice to the respondent to pay the amount of the cheque and since the amount was not paid despite notice, complaint is filed against the respondent of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Learned CMM, took cognizance of the offence and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and issued summons to the accused. Accused appeared before the CMM. , and denied the plea. On behalf of the complainant, complainant was examined as pw. 1 and Exs. P1 to P12 were got marked. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. PC. , was recorded. The defence of the accused is that he has not issued any cheque towards the amount borrowed by him and loan was borrowed by his brother and he had issued cheque by way of security for the loan borrowed by his brother and the cheque is being misutilised and a false complaint has been filed. The Trial Court after considering the material on record and the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant and the accused by judgment dated 7-8-2002 held that the complainant has failed to prove that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the compalinant is before this Court in this appeal.

(3.) I have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant-appellant and the Learned Counel appearing for the accused-respondent in this appeal.