PRADEEP H A Vs. RAGHUVEER INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellant as a complainant had instituted a criminal case against the present respondent under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), in C.C.No.2149/2002, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'N.I.Act').

(2.) The summary of the case of the appellant as a complainant in the trial Court was that the accused No.1-Firm was involved in the powder coating works and accused No.2 was its Managing Director and was known to the complainant. The accused approached the complainant during the first week of January, 2002 and availed a hand loan of Rs. 6,50,000/-. At the demand made by the complainant, the accused No.2, towards repayment of the loan amount, issued him three cheques bearing No.396070, dated 26.4.2002, No.396071, dated 26.4.2002 and No.396072, dated 7.5.2002, for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- respectively. The cheques were drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, J.C.Road Branch, Bengaluru. When all the three cheques were presented for realisation on 22.6.2002, they were returned with a Banker's shara "exceeds arrangements". Therefore, the complainant got issued a legal notice to both the accused on 3.7.2002 through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due and also under Certificate of Posting. The accused did not comply the demand made in the notice, as such, a private complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court after recording the evidence led by both side and hearing both side, by its judgment dated 15.2.2006, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced accused No.2 to pay a fine of Rs. 13,00,000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Challenging the said judgment of conviction, accused No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.49/2006, before the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Sessions Court'), which Court by its judgment dated 24.3.2010, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. It is against the said judgment of acquittal, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument submitted that though it is not in dispute that the cheques in question were issued by the accused, but, the Sessions Court has committed an error in not giving the benefit of presumption of legally enforceable debt in favour of the complainant, on the other hand, it searched for proof of the legally enforceable debt and giving its finding in the negative, has set aside the judgment of conviction and acquitted the accused.