JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 27.08.2013 passed in C.C.No.17750/2008, on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court as complainant and accused in order to avoid the confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant is a Central Government undertaking and had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MOU’ for short) on 10.03.2004 with accused No.2 to finance accused No.1 Company for procurement of Iron Ore to the tune of Rs.11.86 Crores and the complainant would fund 80% of the estimated cost subject to actual and accused No.2 would pay the remaining 20% simultaneously proportionate to the draw down.

4. In connection with this transaction pertaining to the MOU dated 10.03.2004, the accused had issued a cheque for Rs.2.5 Crores dated 17.05.2007. When the said cheque was presented, it was dishonoured with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence legal notice was issued on 26.11.2007. Inspite of service of notice, the accused did not comply the demand and hence the complainant was forced to file complaint against the accused.

5. The complainant in order to substantiate the case examined one witness Sri R. Sundararajan as P.W.1 and Sri R. Kannan as P.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 10. The accused though not led any defense evidence, the Court got marked the documents at Exs.C.1 to 3. The Trial Court recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the accused did not choose to lead any evidence. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, acquitted the accused and hence the present appeal is filed before this Court.

6. The main contention of the complainant in this appeal is that the Trial Judge failed to consider the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also the principles laid down in the judgments referred in the grounds of appeal and also failed to take note of accused Nos.1 and 2 have not entered into the witness box to rebut the evidence of the complainant. The Trial Judge has erred in relying on complaints preferred by the complainant in the arbitration petition and criminal proceedings initiated at Delhi and failed to take note of those matters, which arose with regard to other transactions that had taken place between the complainant and accused Nos.1 and 2. The Trial Judge should have considered only the complaint with regard to the return of cheque. The Trial Judge also has committed an error in holding that the complainant itself was due money to accused No.1 based on a cheque issued in favour of accused No.1 by the complainant-Company. The said cheque was issued to the accused with regard to the other transactions in terms of the MOU dated 10.03.2004. The Trial Judge failed to take note of the fact that P.W.1 was transferred as a result P.W.2 gave the evidence and his evidence is not appreciated in a proper perspective.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there was a MOU between the parties to procure the minerals and export the same. In terms of the MOU dated 10.03.2004, it was agreed to pay 80% by the complainant and remaining 20% by the accused. As per Clause No.19 of the MOU, that in case of breach of any terms and conditions of this agreement by the accused, the complainant shall be at liberty to terminate the agreement forthwith and deal with or dispose of the goods lying in its custody and realize the money for the same and that in the process if the complainant suffers any loss of their investment or returns thereon, the same shall be payable by the accused.

8. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Clause No.2 of the MOU with regard to expected cost of the proposed procurement of Iron Ore in Crores detailed in the MOU to the tune of Rs.14.82 Crores. The learned counsel also br