D A MANJUNATHA Vs. M GOVINDASWAMY

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 III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shimoga (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), in C.C.No.1393/2009, pronounced the judgment of acquittal on 05.07.2010. 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 the accused approached him with a request for a hand loan of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to be advanced to his shop and its decoration. Considering the said request, the complainant advanced a hand loan of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the accused. The said loan was promised to be repaid to the complainant within three months by the accused. On the same day, accused also issued a post-dated cheque to the complainant bearing No.171385, dated 15.5.2000, for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, favouring the complainant and drawn on State Bank of Mysuru, Shivamogga. When the said cheque presented for realisation on 15.5.2000, the same came to be dishonoured with the Banker's endorsement "insufficient funds". Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused through his counsel. The accused sent an untenable reply to the notice, however, did not repay the cheque amount which constrained the complainant to institute a complaint 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 two other witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-11. The accused got himself examined as DW-1 and two other witnesses as DW-2 and DW-3 and got marked documents from Ex.D-1 to D-4. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 5.7.2010, acquitted the accused of the alleged offence. It is against the said judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal.