KIRAN Vs. SATISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the complainant, who filed the complaint before the Court below under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. invoking the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short, 'N.I. Act') against the accused and the Court below acquitted the accused for the said offence and hence, the complainant has preferred this appeal questioning the order of acquittal passed in C.C. No.637/2008.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the complainant in his complaint contended that he is a B.E. Mechanical Engineer doing consultation work, supervision of engineering and other construction work. The accused is a contractor and who took contract work from the Kirloskara Ferrous Industries Limited, Bevinahalli, Koppal to do work of construction of pattern shop, mould shop and other miscellaneous work with an estimation project of Rs.45,00,000/-. As the accused was not having expertise to do his work, he engaged the complainant for expertise service and accordingly the complainant discharged his duty. After completion of work the accused had issued cheque for Rs.4,75,000/- to the complainant for the service rendered by him. When the said cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds' and hence, he caused legal notice to the accused and the same was served and he has issued an untenable reply. The Court below recorded the evidence of the complainant as PW.1 and the complainant examined another witness as PW.2 and relied upon the Exs.P.1 to P.7 and the accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The Court below taking into note of the oral and documentary evidence acquitted the accused. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) The complainant in the present appeal has contended that the Court below while appreciating the evidence held that the transaction in question is illegal and as such provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act is not applicable. Further, committed an error in holding that there is no legally recoverable debt. The very finding of the Court below is wholly illegal and not sustainable in law.