LAKSHMAMMA Vs. NAGARAJ K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals arise out of the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the 18th Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate and 20th Additional Small Causes Judge at Bangalore City in c. C. Nos. 18849 and 18850 of 2003 challenging the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, acquitting the respondent for the offense punishable under Section 138 of N. I. Act. Since the respondent in both the appeals are one and same, both the appeals are taken up together, heard and being disposed of by this common Judgment. In order to avoid repetition of facts in law.

(2.) IT is the case of the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 9/05 that the respondent is acquainted with her and requested for a hand loan of rs. 1,10,000/- to improve his travel business, as he was already running a maxi-cab, a passenger carrier. Therefore, the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- from the appellant on 20th December, 2002 and agreed to repay the same with interest at 12% p. a. He further agreed to pay within three months. Therefore, he issued cheque, Ex. P. l dated 13. 3. 2003 for rs. 1,10,000/- which came to be dishonoured when it was presented for encashment, with shara "funds insufficient", with shara 'funds Insufficient' on 7. 8. 2003. Therefore, appellant got issued the legal notice as per Ex. D. l dated 21. 3. 2003 which came to be served on the respondent. Since the respondent has requested the appellant to present the cheque once again, the appellant has again presented the cheque, but again it came to be dishonoured. Therefore, the second notice came to be issued as Ex. P. 3 on 21. 8. 2003, which was duly served on the respondent on 23. 8. 2003. The complaint came to be filed before the Trial Court to 12. 9. 2003.

(3.) IN Crl. Appeal No. 10 of 2006, likewise the respondent herein had borrowed Rs. 50,000/- from the appellant and issued Ex. P. l, cheque which came to be dishonoured, when it was presented. First notice came to be issued to the respondent on 21. 3. 2003 which was duly served on the respondent on 23. 3. 2003. Again, appellant at the request of the respondent represented the said cheque Ex. P. 1 for Rs. 50,000/- which was again dishonoured. Therefore, second notice, Ex. P. 3 came to be issued which was duly served on 23. 8. 2003 and complaint came to be filed on 12. 9. 2003.