L H RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. S RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the complaint filed by the present appellant under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, against the present respondent, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'N.I.Act'), the learned XVIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrar & XX Addl.SCJ, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), in C.C.No.32553/2006, pronounced the judgment of acquittal on 24.8.2010. It is against the said judgment of acquittal, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The summary of the case of the complainant in the trial Court is that himself and the accused are childhood friends. The complainant was looking for a house to take on mortgage for his stay and requested the accused to get a suitable house to him. In that regard, the accused volunteered to lease out a portion of the house in which he was residing, which would fall vacant in the month of June 2006. On the pretext of getting the said house vacated, for returning the advance amount said to have been paid by the existing tenant in that portion of the house, the accused requested for a hand loan of a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- from the complainant. The accused had also shown the reason that some expenses towards the repair of the said house to be made after the same is vacated by then existing tenant. Believing the accused, the complainant gave a hand loan of a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- by way of cash on 19.5.2006. However, subsequently in the month of June 2006, since the accused informed him that he has decided to let the house on lease, but not on mortgage, the complainant requested for repayment of the hand loan given by him to the accused. As such, towards the said repayment of the hand loan, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.148862, for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-, drawn on Canara Bank, KSRP Extension Counter, Koramangala, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant. As desired by the accused, the complainant presented the said cheque for realisation on 11.6.2006. However, the same returned dishonoured with the banker's endorsement "funds insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice as required under Section 138 of N.I.Act, to the accused, demanding for the payment of the amount. Since the accused sent an untenable reply rather than meeting the demand, the complainant was constrained to institute a case against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of 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 P-10. The accused got himself examined as DW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.D-1 to D-4. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 24.8.2010, acquitted the accused of the alleged offence. It is against the said judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal.