Heard the learned counsel Shri N. Murali for the

appellant and the learned Senior Counsel Shri R.S. Ravi

appearing on behalf of Shri Narendra D.V. Gowda, learned

counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal

passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,

Krishnarajanagar in C.C.No.308/2016 dated 06.04.2018.

The appellant was the complainant before the Court and

the respondent was the accused.

- 3 -

3. The appellant filed a complaint before the Trial

Court alleging that on 20.04.2016, the accused borrowed

a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for his legal necessities and also

for discharge of his earlier loan. The accused promised to

repay the amount and in respect of the payment, he has

issued a post-dated cheque bearing No.189441 for

Rs.2,50,000/- dated 25.05.2016.

Thereafter,

the

complainant presented the said cheque through his banker

Bank, but cheque was returned dishonoured with the

endorsement stating that ‘funds insufficient’. Then, he

issued a legal notice on 03.06.2016 calling upon the

accused to pay the cheque amount. In spite of service of

notice, accused neither repaid the amount nor replied to

the notice. Hence, complainant filed a complaint.

4. Before the Trial Court, complainant got himself

examined as PW-1 and got marked 4 documents as

Exhibits P1 to P4. After recording the 313 Cr.P.C.

statement and hearing the arguments of the learned

- 4 -

counsel for the parties, learned JMFC acquitted the

accused. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is preferred.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that

the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence

on record and has failed to appreciate the fact that Exhibit

P1 / cheque is not disputed by the accused. Accused has

also not replied to the legal notice. The accused, in order

to avoid repaying the cheque amount, has taken some

false ground, which the Trial Court has believed and has

committed an error in holding that the appellant has failed

to prove the case. The accused has not disputed his

signature on the cheque also. Therefore, there is an initial

presumption.

6. It is further argued that the learned Magistrate

has wrongly appreciated Exhibit D1 / legal notice dated

19.03.2016. In that notice, the accused was called upon

to pay Rs.1,50,000/-. But the notice dated 03.06.2016 is

for Rs.2,50,000/-. The entire transaction was different.

- 5 -

Hence, the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the

same. There is no reference to any cheque in Exhibit D1.

The accused has not entered the witness box and has not

been cross-examined. There is no evidence that he has

repaid the amount.

7. The learned counsel further argued that when

Exhibit D1 notice was issued for Rs.1,50,000/-, the

accused again came and pleaded with the complainant to

lend him some more loan. For that, complainant again

gave

him

Rs.1,00,000/-,

which

totally

comes

to

Rs.2,50,000/-. It is only one transaction and there are no

two transactions. Hence, he prayed to set aside the

judgment of acquittal and to allow the appeal.

8. Against this, the learned Senior counsel Shri R.S.

Ravi argued that the judgment passed by the Trial Court is

legal and correct. The learned JMFC has rightly

appreciated the evidence on record and after considering

Exhibit D1, the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the

- 6 -

accused. Learned counsel also has drawn the attention of

the Court to the deposition of PW-1 wherein he has

admitted that except one transaction, there are no other

financial transactions with the accused. Therefore, Exhibit

D1 is fatal to the case of the appellant and he prays to

dismiss the appeal.

9. I have perused the records and evidence of PW-1.

The contention of the appellant before the Trial Court and

the contents of the appeal memo are contrary to the

arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

appellant. If at all the Exhibit D1 amount is Rs.1,50,000/-

and if again the accused approached the complainant an