Karnataka High Court
T T Naveen Kumar vs B Somegowda on 16 February, 2012
Equivalent citations: 2012 ACD 680 (KAR), 2012 (2) AIR KAR R 649, (2013) 1 ICC 211, (2012) 4 KCCR 3593
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
2 JUDGMENT
The appeal is by the complainantagainst if acquittal of the respondent for offe'nce7'_:Apunishable section 138 of the Negotiable lr1s:ti*u1ner1'n:s__
2. Heard.
3. From what learned fC,:r_:Vv:'th';«e'b'_"appellant has adverted to and.'-from following facts emerge. ' 1 V d A it l The" '1'f"fNvayeen Kumar sought prosecutioinuof respondent herein on the allegation that" consideration of '<'2,00,000/- re'ceiV'e'd; ?"the" respondent -- accused issued cheque The cheque, on presentation to the'-..__Bank.y?as dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. issued demanding payment of the amount covered
-the cheque on 18.6.2001 was received by the if .:'_fac»cu}sed, but he failed to comply. During the trial, accused entered appearance and denied the liability. He categorically averred that the .W\// J A 3 complainant had received from him a sum of ?2,00,000/-- in the year 1998 and thereafter repaid the same. any amount.
4. The learned Trial the evidence two material documents em agreement produced by that the respondent
-- cheque on 14.6.2001 towards whereas Exhibit.Dl was another between the accused U and cramplpainantevidencing transaction between them The said agreement dated 31.3.1998 complainant had received '<'2,00,000/-- the aecused as consideration for selling a site which 1' not do, therefore the accused was entitled to recgfver ?2,00,000/-- from the complainant. shrew":
cheque issued by him was not in relation..__lltot'_'any transaction of borrowing but it related to of la»:
site. Since the complainant had undertaking to sell the property', he was notevliable ztoipay 4
5. Comparing of these documents, the 1earned____tria1 Judge opined that the transaction was of civil nattirefarid the accused' had established that the received ~?2,00,000/- which he washotind
6. The second aspect noticed' by 't'h,e"'trria1 is the cheque in possession of e_ompIainant igvas not issued in respect of any 1ega1:.._i'ia:bi1_ity. The finding recorded by the trial cQ1.1r'f:'_ material on record and no _dIiffei%e'r_1.t View3_oou_l.d'*be taken.
7. In is hereby dismissed and aequittai._of is affirmed. aaaaa JUDGE AN/_ .