Ushadevi vs H. Narasimhappa

N. Ananda, J.—The learned trial Judge has acquitted respondent-accused of an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Therefore, the complainant is before this Court. It is averred in the complaint that complainant was a proprietrix of M/s. Sandeep Traders, Savarline Road, Shivamogga. The accused was due in a sum of Rs. 2,12,837/- being outstanding dues in respect of transactions which he had with the firm M/s. Sandeep Traders, of which complainant was the proprietrix. In order to repay aforesaid amount, accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,12,937/- dated 15.11.2001 drawn in favour of complainant. On presentation, cheque was dishonoured.

In the affidavit examination-in-chief filed by complainant, it is stated that accused was a customer of the shop, he had transaction and had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,12,937/- from the complainant, which complainant had received from her father. The accused had borrowed the aforesaid sum for improving his lands. The complainant having stated in the complaint that the accused had transactions with M/s. Sandeep Traders of which complainant was proprietrix, has given altogether different version that complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,12,937/-. It was a loan transaction. The figure narrated in the complaint and deposed by complainant i.e. Rs. 2,12,937/- itself would create a suspicion about loan transaction. The complainant has not deposed the circumstances which compelled her to lend a sum of Rs. 2,12,937/- to accused. The complainant having stated that accused become due in a sum of Rs. 2,12,937/- on account of transactions which he had with the firm had failed to produce documentary evidence such as invoices and bills. Therefore, she has given a different version that the aforestated sum of Rs. 2,12,937/- was lent by complainant to accused. Assuming that complainant had lent money to accused, the complainant has not stated the compelling circumstances under which she had lent money to accused. The complainant was proprietrix of M/s. Sandeep Traders. She had maintained books of accounts. If she had lent money to accused, she would have definitely reflected the same in books of accounts.

The accused has contended that he had issued a blank signed cheque as security to Kodandarama, husband of the complainant and the same has been misused by complainant and her husband. A perusal of date of the cheque would indicate that cheque was given as security much prior to 15.11.2001. The accused after receipt of legal notice from complainant had caused reply notice wherein it is stated that accused is a poor agriculturist, he had no reasons to borrow huge sum of Rs. 2,12,937/-.

It appears, the husband of complainant had transaction with accused. In that connection, he had taken a blank signed cheque, same has been misused by complainant to initiate the instant complaint. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence and also taking into consideration variation between the averments of complaint and evidence of complainant has acquitted the accused. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment.

The appeal is dismissed.