PATCHIAMMAL Vs. K C SRIRAMALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the XIV ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, bangalore in C. C. No. 26130/01 and C. C. No. 26134/01 respectively whereby the Court-below acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. A. Act mainly on the ground that the complaint filed is a premature one. Therefore aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the appellant has come up with these two appeals. The respondent in both the cases is one and the same.

(2.) THE case of the appellant in Crl. A. No. 887/05 is that the respondent herein borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- during October 1999 with assurance to repay the same. For repayment of the said amount, the respondent had issued two post-dated cheques, each for Rs. 50,000/-, dated 8-12-1999 and 17-12-99 bearing Nos. 503537 and 503538, drawn on State bank of India, Banasavadi Branch, Bangalore. When both the cheques were presented for encashment, they were returned through his banker with an endorsement 'insufficient funds' on 24-4-2000. It is the further case of the appellant that immediately after dishonour of the cheques, he contacted the respondent. In turn the respondent-accused informed him that he will settle the said loan amount on or before 30-4-2000. Since he has not settled the amount covered under the cheque, legal notice dated 4-5-2000 came to be issued by rpad and UCP calling upon him to repay the said amount. Notice was duly served through RPAD on 17-5-2000 but the respondent has given untenable reply dated 22-5-2000. Therefore complaint under Section 200 cr. PC. came to be filed against the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. Likewise, the appellant smt. Patchiammal in Crl. A. No. 888/05 filed complaint against the respondent for bouncing of the two cheques bearing Nos. 503539 and 154739 i. e. Exs. P-1 and P-2, each for rs. 50,000/- issued by the respondent towards discharge of loan amount borrowed from the appellant. Therefore after issuing a legal notice through her counsel, she filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr. PC. against the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 N. I. Act.

(3.) THE defence taken by the respondent in both the cases is that the complaints filed by the appellant in both the cases are premature ones. On that ground both the complaints filed by the appellants in both the respective appeals came to be dismissed. Hence these appeals.