( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

( 2 ) THE appellant before this Court is the complainant before the trial Court. The undisputed facts in the present case are the respondent/accused was working for the husband of the appellant by name Mr. Suresh Kumar. The husband of the appellant was running M/s. Uma Enterprises at bangalore. Normally, Mr. Suresh Kumar was looking after the said business and during his absence, his wife was managing the said work. The accused was working as the Manager in the said M/s. Uma Enterprises since october, 1998.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the complainant that in the year 1999, the accused intended to purchase a flat in M/s. Pranam Foundation, indranagar, Bangalore and he approached her and also her husband for financial assistance as the accused was aware that the com-plainant's-husband was receiving a substantial sale proceeds of the flat sold by them at Delhi. The accused was employed in M/s. Uma Enterprises and the husband of the complainant knew the accused since 1984. Having regard to these facts, a sum of Rs. 45,000/- was sent by way of demand draft drawn on Canara Bank dated 27-3-1999, Tagore Garden, New Delhi, in favour of the accused by the husband of the complainant. It was encashed by him through his account on 7-4-1999. It was also agreed between them that he would pay said Rs. 45,000/- together with interest at 11. 5% p. a. within a period of one year from the date of borrowal.

( 4 ) IT is the further case of the complainant that after several requests and demands by the complainant and her husband, the accused came forward to settle the dues by issuing a cheque in favour of the complainant for Rs. 50,100/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, race Course Road Branch, Bangalore. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned with an endorsement as "insufficient funds" on 5-5-2000. When it was brought to the notice of the accused, he requested them to present the cheque again. But the said cheque was returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds. " Thereafter, the mandatory notice was issued. A private complaint came to be lodged when the accused failed to pay the amount under the dishonoured cheque.

( 5 ) AFTER service of summons, the accused contested the matter very seriously and according to him, the demand draft sent by the husband of the complainant was not at all towards any financial assistance sought by him. A notice was issued which was replied by the accused. According to him, he was working for the husband of the complainant-Mr. Suresh Kumar who was running m/s. Uma Enterprises business as a supervisor. He admits that the complainant used to look after the business whenever Mr. Suresh Kumar was out of station. At no point of time, he sought financial assistance either from the complainant or from her husband. His specific defence with regard to demand draft of Rs. 45,000/- is that the said demand draft was sent by Sri Suresh Kumar to this wife i. e. the complainant. This was handed over to the accused by Smt. Usha asking him to take his own months' salary @ Rs. 6,250/- and out of the balance amount, he paid Mr. Sampath Kumar and one Mr. Alexander, the piece work contractors who worked for Mr. Suresh Kumar. Even the debit vouchers from the above said persons were collected by Smt. Usha and the balance of Rs. 7000/- was paid back to Mr. Suresh Kumar on his return. So far as the amounts paid to Sampath Kumar and alexander are concerned, he paid by cash by drawing the amount from his account. This was by utilising a self-cheque. The vouchers were collected by Smt. Usha for the entire amount except for Rs. 7000/- in the presence of Sampath Kumar, Alexander and one Smt. Mary.

( 6 ) THE marriage of the brother of Mr. Suresh Kumar was fixed in May, 2000 at kerala. Mr. Suresh Kumar was to spend for the said marriage. Therefore, he approached the accused for financial assistance in the middle of April, 2000. He handed ov

Click Here to Read the rest of this document