SANDEEP P IJANTKAR Vs. B H NAGANA GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (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 III Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Davanagere (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'trial Court') in C.C.No.808/2009 (Old No.3252/2005), pronounced the judgment of acquittal on 17.05.2010. 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 the accused who was known to him had borrowed hand loan of Rs. 85,000/- about a year back from the date of the complaint, from him and had issued a post dated cheque bearing No.048755 drawn on Chitradurga District Co-operative Central bank, Davanagere Branch for Rs. 85,000/- favouring the complainant and with the date 20.04.2005. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment on 22.06.2005 to his banker. However, the same returned dishonored with an endorsement "insufficient funds". Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 24.06.2005 in the form of Registered Post Acknowledgement due as well under the Certificate of Post. According to the complainant, the accused managed to return the notice sent to him under RPAD. However, the notice sent through Certificate of Post was duly served upon the accused. Again the same notice was sent under fresh RPAD and under Certificate of Post, the said notice again returned. Inspite of the service of notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount, as such, the complainant was constrained to institute a case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) To prove his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to Exs.P-13. The accused got himself examined as DW.1 and no documents were marked from his side.