The judgment emphasizes the significance of material alterations in negotiable instruments and criticizes the reliance on hyper technicalities in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

N.K.Sudhindrarao, J. - Heard Sri. Pradeep Naik K., learned counsel for appellant who has appeared before the Court and Sri. M.Sharass Chandra, learned counsel for respondent/accused through VC.

2. The appeal is directed against the judgment passed in CC No.31353/2006 dated 15.7.2011 by the learned 12th ACMM, Bangalore, wherein the accused/respondent came to be acquitted in the Criminal Case filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the complainant is in appeal.

3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping the parties are addressed in accordance with their rankings as stood before the trial court.

4. The substance of the complaint is that, accused is a friend of complainant. Accused approached the complainant for financial assistance of Rs.2.00 lakh to meet his urgent family necessities promising to repay the same within two months. Complainant lent the amount to the accused. But the accused did not maintain his words in repayment of loan amount. When complainant demanded for the payment of the loan amount, accused issued a cheque bearing No.796484 dated 3.6.2006 for Rs.2.00 lakhs drawn on Canara Bank, Tumkur Road Branch, Bangalore. The cheque was presented by the complainant for collection through his banker Dena Bank, Peenya Branch, Bangalore, but it was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement funds insufficient on 15.6.2006. Complainant got issued a legal notice on 11.7.2006. Despite service of notice, payment was not made by the accused. Then complainant has filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in CC No.31353/2006.

5. Accused appeared before the trial court on issuance of summons, his plea was recorded, accused pleaded not guilty.

6. To prove his case, complainant/V.N.Harish got examined himself as PW1 and got marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. On the other hand, accused/S.Bhaskaran got examined himself as DW1 and got examined one Dinesh as DW2 and got marked 5 documents as Exs.D1 to D5.

7. The trial court considering the oral and documentary evidence available on file, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Against which, complainant is in appeal.

8. Learned counsel Sri.Pradeep Naik K appearing for appellant/complainant submits that the trial court seriously erred in considering the hyper technical aspect and acquitting the accused in the case. He would further submit that the cheque number was wrongly typed in the notice Ex.P5 and in the complaint as well. The learned trial judge concluded that it is malafide and also on the aspect more or less equal to attempt to cheat and dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused. He would further submit that there was legally recoverable debt and the cheque was issued for repayment of the said loan amount.

9. Learned counsel Sri. M.Sharass Chandra, appearing for the accused/respondent would submit that this is not the first case filed against the accused under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

10. Learned counsel would submit that accused is a driver by profession. Earlier he was working as a driver under one C.M.Mohanramareddy who is the father-in-law of one Dinesh who is examined as DW2 in this case in relation to the payment of installments in respect of purchase of a vehicle for getting the benefit of subsidy the cheques were given to the said C.M.Mohanramareddy. But they are misused by the complainant. Another complaint is also filed against the accused by one Dinesh and the present case is filed by one V.N.Harish. Thus, the complainant is making double attack on the accused.

11. The features that do not require a dissective situation or analysis or issuance of legal notice dated 11.7.2006 as per Ex.P5 by the complainant is not seriously disputed. Dishonour of cheque bearing No. 796484