D.BALAJI Vs. P.SELVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as accused and complainant respectively.

(2.) It is a case of the complainant that the accused had approached him on 10/6/2009 and borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00from him as hand loan and agreed to repay the same whenever demanded by the complainant with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. In order to discharge his liability, the accused had executed a Promissory Note dtd. 10/6/2009 (Ex.Pl) on the same day and from the date of hand loan, the accused neither paid any amount towards the interest nor paid the principal. During the month of June 2010, the complainant approached the accused and made a demand to repay the said amount with interest, whereas the accused instead of repaying the said sum, sought one more month for repayment. Thereafter, the complainant made several attempts to get back his amount and finally during the 1st week of August, 2010, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.230371 dtd. 9/8/2010 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000.00 (Ex.P2), drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, Vellore Branch in favour of the complainant and assured him that the cheque would be honoured on presentation. The complainant believing his words, presented the cheque through his banker viz. Indian Bank, Katpadi on 11/8/2010 and the counter foil is marked as Ex.P3, but the said cheque was returned by the accused banker with an endorsement "Funds insufficient" vide bank return memo dtd. 13/8/2010 (Ex.P4). Therefore, the complainant issued a statutory demand notice dtd. 26/8/2010 by registered post (Ex.P5), the certificate of posting receipt dtd. 27/8/2010 has been marked as Ex.P6, the Courier receipt dtd. 27/8/2010 has been marked as Ex.P7 and the Acknowlegement card dtd. 30/8/2010 has been marked as Ex.P8; the accused despite receiving the legal notice, neither replied nor repaid the cheque amount as demanded by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant initiated prosecution by way of private complaint in C.C.No.166 of 2010 before learned Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi, Vellore District, for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity the NI Act) against the accused.

(3.) On appearance, the accused was questioned under Sec. 251 Cr.P.C. and he denied the accusation.