SRI SAI JYOTHI CALENDERS Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant, in a private complaint filed complaining an offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is the appellant before this Court. The appellant filed a complaint alleging that the appellant and the accused are known to each other well and the accused, to discharge his urgent expenses, had borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000.00 on 10/2/2009, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In discharge of the said liability, the accused issued the cheque, dtd. 7/7/2009 and when the cheque was presented for collection, the same is returned as "funds insufficient". After issuing a demand notice and since the respondent/accused failed to make payment within the period of 15 days, the complaint was filed.

(2.) After recording the sworn statement and taking cognizance, the accused was summoned. Upon questioning, the accused denied the charge and stood trial. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and one Amararam as P.W.2. On behalf of the complainant, the original cheque was marked as Ex.P-1; the return memo as Ex.P-2; the debit advice as Ex.P-3 and the demand notice as Ex.P-4. Upon questioning about the material evidence on record, the accused denied them as false. Thereafter, on behalf of the defence, the accused examined himself as D.W.1, one D.Saral as D.W.2 and one J.Narasimma Rao as D.W.3. On behalf of the accused, the plaint filed in O.S.No.545 of 2011 was marked as Ex.D-1; the return statement in the said suit was marked as Ex.D-2; the reply notice, issued by the accused to the demand notice, was marked as Ex.D-3; the letter given by I.N.G. Vysya Bank was marked as Ex.D-4; the private complaint filed by the accused at Rajhamundry was marked as Ex.D-5 and the bank statement of the accused was marked as Ex.D-6. Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded to hear the learned Counsel on both sides and by its judgment, dtd. 9/9/2016, found the accused guilty for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and imposed a sentence of six months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a compensation of Rs.7,00,000.00 to the complainant.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/accused preferred Crl.A.No.255 of 2016 and the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, by a judgment, dtd. 11/12/2018, upturned the finding of the guilt into one of acquittal, as against which the present appeal is filed.