N.B. CHOWDAREDDY Vs. SRI D.E. RAGHUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the complainant and the respondent in both the appeals are one and the same, the factual story in both the cases are also one and the same, the legal aspects involved in both the aspects are one and the same, both the above appeals are taken together in order to dispose of them by this common order to avoid repetition of facts and law.

(2.) The complainant herein in both the appeals was the complainant before the trial court. He approached the trial court with the averments in the private complaint in both the cases that complainant and the respondent-accused are friends. The respondent approached the complainant for financial assistance of Rs. 5,00,000/- in each of the two cases to meet his business commitments. Accordingly, appellant herein paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent on 15.08.2011 in the connected appeal and on 04.09.2011 of Rs. 5,00,000/- in Crl. Appeal No. 1394/2015. Subsequently, when the complainant demanded the payment of the said amount, the respondent herein issued cheques in respects of the two transactions of Rs. 5,00,000/- each. When the cheques were presented before the bank, they were returned unpaid for the reasons "funds insufficient". Therefore, the complainant herein issued the legal notices to the respondent-accused through RPAD, notices were duly served in the connected case i.e. Crl. Appeal No. 1393/2015 but in the main matter, the notice was not claimed by the respondent. Therefore, the appellant herein filed two private complaints before the concerned ACMM Court alleging that the respondent-accused herein committed an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After taking the sworn statement of the complainant, cognizance was taken, notices issued to the respondent-accused. The accused appeared in the matter, there afterwards when the criminal cases were pending before the trial court, appellant and respondent herein filed joint memos informing the court that the matters are settled. Therefore, as there was an element of settlement, the learned ACMM referred both the matters to the Lok-Adalath. Even before the Lok-Adalath in respect of both the matters, joint memos came to be filed signed by the appellant and the respondent herein so also signed by the learned counsels on both the sides. The Lok-Adalath after considering the joint memos taken it on record, it referred back the matter to the concerned ACMM Court informing that the matters are settled but, the Lok-Adalath has not drawn the award in view of the joint memos filed. Subsequently, the concerned ACMM Court by invoking section 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and in view of the joint memos convicted the respondent-accused in both the matters.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent accused approached the first appellate court preferring criminal appeals in Crl. Appeal No. 195/2015 and Crl. Appeal No. 196/2015 on the file of the LXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru. After hearing both the sides and also after considering the legal position in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2012 SC 719 : (2012(1) AICLR (S.C.) 539] in the case of K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon v. C.D. Shaji allowed both the appeals setting aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the JMFC Court and remanded the matter for trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.