The court emphasized the importance of proving the offence beyond reasonable doubt and considered the evidence presented to determine the accused's guilt under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

JUDGMENT

H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. - In the complaint filed by the present appellant under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the present respondent, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'N.I.Act ), the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., Shikaripura (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court ), by the judgment dated 09.03.2010, passed in C.C.No.398/2007 convicted the accused for the said offence and sentenced him accordingly.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimoga, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Fast Track Court ), in Criminal Appeal No.27/2010, which by its judgment dated 29.10.2010, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment passed by the trial Court, acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant/appellant has preferred the present appeal.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the trial Court is that, the complainant and the accused were well known to each other, as such, the complainant gave a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused, at his request, to meet his financial difficulties, in the month of September 2006. The accused had agreed to repay the loan amount within three months. He failed to repay the loan. However, on 2.1.2007 the accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- bearing No.804788 drawn on Shimoga District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Shiralkoppa branch in favour of the complainant. When the said cheque was presented by the complainant for its realization through its banker, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Thereafter, the complainant caused a legal notice on 18.1.2007 to the accused demanding repayment of the cheque amount. The notices were sent both under Registered Post Acknowledgement Due as well as under Certificate Of Posting. Since the accused failed to comply the demand made in the notice, the complainant was constrained to institute a case against him in the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

3. The complainant in the trial Court, in order to prove his case, got himself examined as P.W.1 and got examined one Sri.H.R.Chandrashekar and one Sri.M.S.Ishwaraiah as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively. He also got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P8 from his side. The accused got himself examined as D.W.1. However, no documents were marked as exhibits from his side.

4. After hearing both sides, the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 09.03.2010 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced him accordingly.

Challenging his conviction ordered by the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.27/2010 before the Sessions Court, which after hearing both sides, by its judgment dated 29.10.2010 allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and acquitted the accused of the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

It is against the said judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, the complainant has filed the present appeal.

5. The trial Court and Fast Track Court s records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

6. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the respondent failed to appear before this Court on several dates of hearing and also considering the fact that this appeal was ten years old appeal, this Court by its order dated 10.9.2020, appointed learned counsel Sri Rakshit.R, as Amicus Curiae for the respondent.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant, in his argument, submitted that the Sessions Court which held that the trial