SURESH Vs. BHASKAR PROPRIETOR

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 Magistrate and XX Addl.Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), in C.C.No.31855/2006, pronounced the judgment of acquittal on 23.01.2010. 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 being his friend availed a hand loan of Rs.50,000/- in October 2005, promising to repay the same in February 2006. At the time of availing loan, the accused had given him a cheque bearing No.042414, dated 18.02.2006, for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, drawn on Canara Bank, Rajajinagar II Block, Bengaluru. Accordingly, when the said cheque was presented for realisation on 1.6.2006, the same came to be dishonoured with Banker's endorsement "funds insufficient". This made the complainant to issue a legal notice both under Registered Post Acknowledgement Due and under Certificate of Posting to the accused demanding the payment of the cheque amount. The registered post returned with the postal shara "absent. Intimation delivered". However, the notice sent under Certificate of Posting was duly served upon the accused. Despite which, the accused has not paid the cheque amount which constrained the complainant 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-9. From the accused side, no witnesses were examined, but, the documents at Exs.D-1 and D-2 were got marked. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 23.01.2010, acquitted the accused of the alleged offence. It is against the said judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal.