SIDDESHWAR Vs. H T GURUMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/original complainant challenges the judgment and order dated 30-6-2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, "C" Court, Mapusa in OA Criminal Case No. 636/P/03/C acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ("The Act" for short). The parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status before the learned Magistrate.

(2.) Briefly, the case of the complainant is as under :

(3.) Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submitted that the learned Magistrate has not properly marshalled and appreciated the evidence led by the parties. He invited my attention to the three agreements dated 27-6-2002 (Exh.PW1/g), 31-8-2002 (Exh.PW1/A) and 14-10-2002 (Exh.PW1/h). He further submitted that the complainant has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had issued cheque in question for discharge of his debt or liability towards the complainant. According to Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Magistrate has completely misread the evidence led by the parties. He further submitted that the defence of the accused that the cheque was issued for payment of the said amount to Mr. Deshprabhu in order to secure the title to the property which was agreed to be transferred in favour of the accused, is falsified by D.W.2 Mr. Ladu Naik. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the findings recorded by the Magistrate, are perverse and the accused has not been able to discharge the presumption under section 139 of the Act and, therefore, the impugned order acquitting the accused deserves to be quashed and set aside.