DHANALAKSHMI Vs. M C SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in Crl.A.No.381 of 2016 is the complainant and the respondent in the said Appeal is the accused in S.T.C.No.381 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC-I), Erode.

(2.) Since the issues involved in the above Appeal, Revision and the Criminal Original Petition are inter-connected with each other, they are disposed of by way of this common order. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the Complainant and the accused.

(3.) The complainant has filed a complaint against the respondent for the alleged offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that on 18.11.2011, for his urgent expenses, the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.6 lakhs from the appellant; that to discharge the said loan amount, the respondent issued a post-dated cheque for Rs.6 lakhs, dated 27.04.2012, bearing No.394509, drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Periyar Nagar Branch, Erode, in favour of the appellant; that when the same cheque was presented for collection on 27.04.2012 through Canara Bank, V.H.Road, Erode Branch, the same was returned with an endorsement 'Opening Balance Insufficient' on 28.04.2012. Hence, the complainant issued a lawyer notice on 22.05.2012 to the respondent calling upon him to pay the cheque amount of Rs.6 lakhs, within fifteen days. Though the respondent received the notice, he failed to repay the loan amount. Hence, the complainant preferred the private complaint, which was taken on file as S.T.C.No.381 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC-I), Erode.