K B ESHWARAPPA Vs. MALLESHANAIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Cr.P.C'), against the present respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'N.I. Act'), the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Chamarajanagar (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'trial Court') in C.C.No.940/2006, pronounced the judgment of acquittal on 25.01.2010. It is against the said judgment of acquittal, the appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The summary of the case of the complainant in the trial Court is that that complainant and accused were known to each other and the respondent/accused had borrowed a hand loan of Rs. 1 lakh in the last week of February, 2006 from him for his absolute necessities and had agreed to repay the same within six months. Towards discharge of the said loan amount, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.893052 dated 23.08.2006 in his favour drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Chamarajanagar Branch, Chamarajanagar for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. When presented for realisation, the said cheque was returned dishonoured with the banker's endorsement 'Funds Insufficient'. Thereafter, he (complainant) issued a notice dated 28.08.2006, calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. Despite the receipt of the legal notice, the accused did not pay the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant was constrained to file a criminal case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) The accused appeared in the trial Court and contested the matter. In order to prove his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P-5. The accused got himself examined as DW-1, got no documents marked from his side as exhibits. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its judgment dated 25.01.2010, acquitted the accused of the alleged offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is challenging the said judgment of acquittal, the appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal.