This appeal is filed by the appellant-complainant

under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C for setting aside the

judgment of acquittal passed by the XII ACMM,

Bengaluru in C.C.No.17846/2014 on 08.07.2015 for

having acquitted the respondent-accused for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881.

2.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

3.

The rank of the parties before the trial

Court retained for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the complainant is that the

complainant and the accused are known persons and

in the month of March 2014 the accused requested for

3

financial assistance and borrowed hand loan of Rs.3

lakhs from the complainant with an assurance to

repay the same within two months. Accordingly he

issued a cheque bearing No.031954 dated 02.05.2014

for Rs.3 lakhs and when the cheque was presented for

encashment it was dishonoured for the reasons "funds

insufficient" on 27.05.2014. The legal notice was

issued to the accused to his address through RPAD on

02.06.2014 which was served on him on 05.06.2014

but he neither replied nor repaid the money. Hence,

complaint came to be filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C

for the offences punishable under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

5. The accused appeared through the counsel

and denied the charges, accordingly the complainant

examined himself as PW1 and got marked four

documents and statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C

was recorded. The case of the accused is one of the

4

total denial and he had himself examined us DW1 but

no documents marked. After hearing the arguments

the trial court found the accused not guilty and

acquitted vide judgment dated 08.07.2015 which is

under challenge.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has

contended

that

the

trial

court

acquitted

the

respondent-accused on the ground holding that the

address to which notice was issued to the respondent-

accused was not served on him but some other person

signed for him and as per Ex.P1 (a) and Ex.P4

signature of the accused are different, therefore no

notice has been served for the purpose of filing

complaint, on that ground accused was acquitted.

Learner counsel further contended that the accused

was acquitted as the accused took the defense that

the blank cheque was given to one Honnesh for the

purpose of giving security for obtaining loan from this

5

complainant by the said Honnesh and the same was

believed by the trial court and acquitted, which is not

correct. The learned counsel also contended that the

oral contention of the respondent was considered on

some contradiction in respect of payment of loans in

March 2014 by part by part but not in one stretch.

Therefore trial court acquitted the accused, which is

not correct. The learned counsel also contended the

notice has been served on the accused and may be

one of the family members, who is residing adjacent

to his father-in-law's house which was admitted by

him. Even though he has taken contention that he was

not residing in the said address given in the

complaint, as well as in RPAD and he has stated that

he is staying in some other address, but he has not

produced any address proof and marked before the

magistrate. On the other hand he is still residing in

the same address and even in the appeal also filed the

6

said address and it was served on him and therefore

appeared through advocate. Apart from that on the

ration card of the respondent also produced, which

reveals in the same address he is residing but taken a

false contention that he is not residing in the address,

which is not correct. The contention of the

complainant is amount of Rs.3 lakhs given to the

accused as hand loan in March 2014 and there is no

case of the complainant that it was given part by part

but at a stretch but in cross examination he has stated

that he has given different days, that itself is not

ground to reject the complaint. He further contended

that t