[ad_1]
The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal
under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in
C.C.No.3765/2018 dated 21.07.2023 on the file of XVI
Addl. CMM, Bengaluru.
2. For the purpose of convenience parties are
referred to as per their rank before the trial court.
Appellant was arraigned as accused and respondent
was the complainant before the trial court.
Complainant set the law into motion by lodging private
complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C., for the offence
punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
against accused.
3. The gist of the accusation in the complaint is
that, the accused being a business man has
approached the complainant for a loan of
Rs.10,00,000/- for business purpose. The complainant
has issued a cheque bearing No.741814 dated
14.07.2014 for Rs.10 lakhs drawn on Andhra Bank,
Bengaluru in favour of the accused. The accused has
encashed the cheque. The complainant has requested
the accused to repay the loan. The accused has issued
a cheque bearing No.957540 dated 05.08.2017 for
Rs.10 lakhs drawn on Vijaya Bank, Kodigehalli
Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant
towards the repayment of loan of Rs.10,00,000/-. The
complainant has presented the cheque for encashment
before the Canara Bank, J.P.Nagar branch, Bengaluru.
But the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient
funds in the account of the accused vide bank
endorsement dated 11.08.2017. It was intimated to the
accused. The accused has requested the complainant
re-present the cheque for encashment. Therefore, the
complainant has re-presented the cheque for
encashment before the Bank. But the cheque was
again dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the
account of the accused vide Bank endorsement dated
6.10.2017. Therefore, the complainant got issued a
legal notice dated 23.10.2017 calling upon the accused
to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the
date of service of legal notice. But the legal notice was
returned with an endorsement as “Not claimed” vide
dated 3.11.2017. But the accused has failed to pay the
cheque amount. As accused failed to pay the amount,
complainant constrained to set the law into motion.
[ad_2]
Source link