The

present

petitioner

was

accused

in

C.C.No.32144/2010, in the Court of the learned XV

Addl.Chief

Metropolitan

Magistrate,

Bengaluru

City,

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as the <trial Court=).

By its judgment dated 24.08.2012, the trial Court

convicted the accused for the offence punishable under

Section

138

of

Negotiable

Instruments

Act,

1881

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as `N.I.Act9) and was

sentenced accordingly.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the

trial Court was that the accused had availed a personal

loan facility from the complainant, which is a registered

Company under the Companies Act, 1956, and thereafter,

towards the part repayment of the loan amount, he had

issued two cheques in favour of the complainant, both

3

drawn on ICICI Bank, Indira Nagar Branch, Bengaluru,

both dated 13.02.2010, for a sum of `25,000/- and

`50,000/- respectively. When the said cheques were

presented by the complainant for their realisation through

its Banker, both cheques came to be returned unpaid with

the Banker9s shara <insufficient funds=. Thereafter, the

complainant got issued a legal notice dated 15.04.2010

upon the accused under Registered Post Acknowledgement

Due, calling upon the payment of the cheque amount.

However, the said notice returned with the postal shara

<intimation delivered= on 17.04.2010. Since the accused

did not repay the loan amount, the complainant was

constrained to institute a case against the accused in the

trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

N.I.Act.

3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, charges were

framed against the accused for the alleged offence.

4. The complainant in order to prove its case, got

examined one Sri V.Jansi Rao, Power of Attorney Holder of

4

the complainant-Company as PW-1 and got marked

sixteen documents from Exs.P-1 to P-16. On behalf of the

accused, neither any witness was examined nor any

documents were marked.

5. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its

impugned judgment dated 24.08.2012, convicted the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

N.I.Act and sentenced him accordingly.

6.

Challenging

the

said

order,

the

accused

preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.577/2012,

before the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court

(Sessions)-XI, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred

to as `Sessions Judge's Court), which by its judgment

dated 25.03.2013, dismissed the appeal by confirming the

judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. It is

against these judgments of conviction, the accused has

preferred this appeal.

7. The respondent is being represented by its learned

counsel.

5

8. Records from the trial Court and Sessions

Judge9s Court pertaining to the matter were called for and

the same are placed before the Court.

9. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the

materials placed before this Court.

10. The only point that arises for my consideration

is,

<Whether the impugned judgments

suffer

from

perversity,

illegality,

impropriety warranting any interference at

the hands of this Court=.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his

argument submitted that he would not deny or dispute the

alleged fact of availment of personal loan by the accused

from the complainant-Company and also issuance of two

cheques and their dishonour by the Banker when

presented for realisation. However, he would dispute that

the person who lodged the complaint had authority to

lodge the complaint since the General Power of Attorney

exhibited by him at Ex.P-1 is subsequent in its date from

6

the date of filing of the complaint. He also submitted that,

admittedly the drawer of the cheques is a proprietorship

concern and since the said establishment is not made as a

party

in

the

complaint,

the

complaint

was

not

maintainable.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

relying upon a judgment of Delhi High Court in Shankar

Lal Aggarwal 3vs- Balram Luthra, reported in 2009