N. NARSAMMA Vs. CHINNA MUKKIRANNA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present appeal, the appellant/complainant has assailed the judgment dated 05.10.2016 passed in C.C No.71 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ complainant submits that the respondent/accused has never denied the signature on Ex.P1. But in spite of that, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order, thereby acquitted the accused. All the statutory ingredients to attract the offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (N.I. Act) are complied with in the present case. Such as, drawing the cheque in favour of the complainant towards legally enforceable debt, dis-honour of the cheque, issuing of the demand notice and failure the respondent/accused to pay the cheque amount within the period of 15 days from the date of notice. But without considering the same, the Court below acquitted the respondent/accused.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that the respondent/accused has taken a defence that appellant/complainant is a stranger to him and he denied to have obtained any loan from her. He further submits that in fact the respondent/accused has issued the subject cheque for Rs.5,000.00 to one civil contractor by name Shedrick in the year 2008 and the same is misused by the husband of the appellant/complainant herein and filed the present case. The same has been relied by the Magistrate without examining the said contractor.