B EDUKONDALU Vs. M HARINATHA BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C ), is filed by the appellant/complainant aggrieved by the judgment, dated 12.12.2011, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2010 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, NTR Nagar, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge while setting aside the judgment, dated 07.06.2010, in Calendar Case No.426 of 2009 (Old C.C.No.1846 of 2005) passed by the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, acquitted the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the NI Act ).

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State. There is no representation for the respondent /accused. Perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that the respondent/accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- from the appellant/complainant in the month of February, 2003; that thereafter, on a request made by the appellant/complainant, the respondent/accused got issued Ex.P.1- cheque bearing No.690527, dated 03.12.2003, drawn on SBH, IDPL Colony Branch, Hyderabad, for Rs.1,22,200/-; that when the said cheque was presented in the bank for collection, the same was returned with an endorsement refer to drawer and return memo, dated 09.12.2003 was also issued; that thereafter, the appellant/complainant got issued legal notice on 20.12.2003 demanding the respondent/accused to pay the cheque amount; that the said notice was acknowledged by the respondent/accused and Ex.P.6-reply notice was issued with false allegations; that the trial Court had rightly considered the same and convicted the respondent/accused, however, the appellate Court disbelieved borrowing of the amount by the respondent/accused and dismissed the complaint, which is erroneous and ultimately, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the appellate Court and restore the judgment of the trial Court.