C.HARINATH GOUD Vs. M.LALITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 7/6/2017 in C.C.No.383 of 2016 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Rajendranagar, R.R.District (for short, "the trial Court") wherein and whereunder the learned Magistrate acquitted respondent/accused for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the NI Act").

(2.) Heard Mr.Dinesh Reddy Malli Reddy, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.Rama Kotaiah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that on 14/2/2015, respondent/accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000.00 from the appellant/complainant. After receiving the said amount, the accused voluntarily executed the promissory note in favour of the complainant. But he failed to repay the amount within the stipulated time. Instead of repaying the amount, she issued cheque bearing No.304071 dtd. 19/8/2016 for the sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 towards discharge of the existing debt. On presentation, the said cheque was returned unpaid for the reason, "funds insufficient" in the account of the accused. Then, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 31/8/2016 to her last known address, which was returned. It is also stated that another notice was also sent to the official address of the accused and it was delivered on the accused on 3/9/2016. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the NI Act").