LAWS(KAR)-2019-9-58

S. K. PRABHU Vs. K. GIRIDHAR RAO

Decided On September 16, 2019
S. K. Prabhu Appellant
V/S
K. Giridhar Rao Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner challenging the judgment passed by the LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Court, Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.1415/2014 dated 01.12.2015, where under the judgment and order of conviction passed by XXIII ACMM, Bengaluru in C.C.No.2620/2010 dated 12.12.2014 was confirmed by dismissing the appeal.

(2.) I have heard Smt. Neeraja Karanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Ganesh Shenoy, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) Before considering the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the factual matrix as per the case of the complainant is that the accused and complainant are distant relatives and accused-petitioner was running a business. On 27.08.2007, at the request of accused-petitioner, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.941773 drawn on Canara Bank for his urgent business requirements and the same was enchased on 28.08.2007. It is the further case of the complainant that the accused-petitioner agreed to repay the said amount within two months along with interest @ 18% p.a. Accused-petitioner failed to repay the amount as agreed and he paid Rs.3,400/- on 17.10.2007, Rs.12,450/- on 06.02.2008 and Rs.20,000/- on 23.02.2008 towards interest. The complainant requested the accused-petitioner to repay the loan amount. Instead of making the payment, he issued four cheques bearing Nos.968827, 968828, 968829 and 968830 dated 28.12.2008 drawn on Syndicate Bank. He presented the said cheques on 09.04.2009 through Canara Bank and the same were dishonored with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient" on 30.04.2009. On 26.05.2009, the complainant issued a legal notice demanding payment of the said amount and the said notice was served on the accused-petitioner on 13.05.2009. The accused-petitioner has not paid any amount and as such a complaint was filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter called as 'Act' for short). On the basis of the private complaint, the Court took the cognizance and thereafter secured the presence of the accused-petitioner and plea of the accused-petitioner was recorded and accusedpetitioner pleaded not guilty and he claims to be tried and as such, the case was posted for trial.