1. The material facts not in dispute are that, the respondent-complainant (for convenience hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’) had filed C.C.No.286/2004, in the Court of JMFC, Koppa against the petitioner-accused (for convenience hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’), under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’), in relation to bounced cheque for Rs.12,00,000/-, which had been issued by the accused. By a Judgment dated 15.2.2007, the accused was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.24,00,000/-to the complainant. Assailing the said Judgment, the accused filed Crl.A.No.20/2007 in the Sessions Court at Chikmagalur. During the pendency of the said appeal, an endeavour having been made to resolve the dispute between the parties, an agreement having been reached, the parties entered into a compromise. The appellant-accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-, as against the fine amount of Rs.24,00,000/-. Out of the agreed amount, the accused paid by cash Rs.4,00,000/-, to the complainant and assured to pay the balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/-, in installments. Towards payment of the said balance amount, the accused issued four post dated cheques bearing Nos.0706011, 0706012, 0706013 and 0706014, drawn on Chikmagalur-Kodagu Grameena Bank, Agalagandi branch. The complainant presented for encashment, the cheque bearing No.0706012, dated 12.3.2008, for Rs.2,50,000/-, which bears signature of the accused. The bank returned the cheque on 12.3.2008, with an endorsement ‘payment stopped by the drawer’. The complainant issued a notice on 8.4.2008, calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days. Notice sent by RPAD with the description ‘M.N.Srikara Rao’ S/o Late Sheshagiri Rao, Agriculturist, r/o Haluthota, Bethadakolalu, Koppa Taluk was returned for the reason, ‘an initial of the addressee differs’. However, notice sent by certificate of posting with the same description, to the same address, was not returned. Since, payment was not made, a private complaint was filed, under S.138 of the Act, before the JMFC at Koppa. Cognizance was taken. Case was registered and process was issued. The accused denied having received notice from the complainant regarding dishonor of cheque and also the liability to pay the cheque amount. It was inter alia contended that, there being no cause of action, i.e., for not giving and/or serving notice contemplated under S.138(b) of the Act, the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant examined himself as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P6 was marked. Ex.P1 is the cheque and Ex.P1(a) is the signature of the accused on the cheque. Ex.P2 is the cheque return endorsement of the Bank. Ex.P3 is copy of the legal notice dated 8.4.2008. Ex.P4 is the RPAD receipt. Ex.P5 is acknowledgment for certificate of posting of the notice/Ex.P3. Ex.P6 is another copy of the said notice and Ex.P6 (a) is the returned RPAD envelope. PW-1 was not cross-examined. The accused examined himself as DW-1.

2. The learned Trial Judge, noticing the admissions of the accused/DW-1, that he was convicted in C.C. No.286/2004 and was ordered to pay fine/compensation of Rs.24,00,000/-to the complainant; the appeal filed there against; the issuance of cheque Ex.P1 to the complainant and also his liability to pay the amount in terms of the compromise entered into the criminal appeal, held that the cheque/Ex.P1 was issued to the complainant in order to discharge the legal liability. The contention that the demand notice Ex.P3/P6 was not give/served was repelled. The cheque amount having not been paid, the accused was found guilty. Accused was convicted for the offence under S.138 of the Act and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

3. Assailing the said Judgment, the accused filed Crl.A.No.109/2009, in the Sessions Court at Chikmagalur. The com