HANUMANTHA RAJU Vs. SHIVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.34334/2014 dated 08.12.2017, whereunder the complaint came to be dismissed by acquitting the accused.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant/appellant. Though the notice is served on the respondent, he remained absent and there is no representation.

(3.) The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant and the accused were acquainted with each other. The accused was working as a Lineman and he has approached the complainant for hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- for his family necessities. Believing the words of the accused, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of cheque in the first week of July 2014 and the accused had issued a post dated cheque bearing No.289371 dated 05.08.2014 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad. After the said period, the complainant approached and requested the accused for repayment of the said amount. The accused instructed the complainant to present the said cheque for encashment. As per the instructions of the accused, complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker, it was returned with shara "Funds Insufficient" on 27.09.2014. Subsequently, the complainant got issued a notice to the accused on 21.10.2014 and the said notice returned with shara "Intimation delivered" since he has not received any acknowledgment for having served the notice to his residential address. Even the complainant has sent one more letter addressing to the accused on 29.11.2014. The accused did not come forward to pay the amount under the cheque and as such, the complaint was registered. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took the cognizance, accused was secured and his plea was recorded. He pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the trial was fixed.