S.B. EASWAR Vs. B.C. KESAVA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question, whether a person acquitted of an alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, could be subsequently prosecuted and tried for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC based on the same transaction in the light of Article 20(2) of The Constitution of India and Section 300 of Cr.P.C. has come up for consideration in this original petition.

(2.) The 1st petitioner was originally prosecuted by the respondent by way of a private complaint for alleged offence u/s. 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. In that case, it was alleged that the 1st petitioner herein had borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the respondent herein on 16.07.2009. On the same date, in discharge of such liability, it is alleged that the 1st petitioner issued a post dated cheque dated 16.07.2009 drawn on Indian Bank, Soolagiri Branch bearing Cheque No. 422531. When the cheque was presented, it was dishonoured by the bank on two grounds viz., (i) funds insufficient and (ii) signature of the account holder differs. Having received the same, the respondent issued a legal notice to the 1st petitioner under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act demanding payment of the cheque amount, for which, the 1st petitioner herein issued a reply notice, wherein he denied his liability to pay any amount to the respondent. He had also stated that he had no such bank account and that the cheque was not issued by him. Thereafter, the respondent filed the said private complaint alleging that the 1st petitioner herein had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Hosur took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C. No. 73 of 2011.

(3.) It appears that thereafter, the trial went on. The respondent examined himself followed by the examination of the Bank Manager. The Manager of the Bank examined on the side of the respondent, deposed that the account relating to the cheque in question was not in the name of the 1st petitioner herein. Thus, it came to light that the cheque in question had not been drawn as against the bank account maintained by the 1st petitioner. Having found the said fact and under the impression that there was no purpose in proceeding with the trial, the respondent filed a petition under Section 257 of Cr.P.C. seeking to withdraw the said case. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate allowed the said petition permitting withdrawal and acquitted the 1st petitioner. At this juncture, it needs to be remembered that the 2nd petitioner was not an accused in the said case.