9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court is that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- from her on 07.03.2004 as loan for the purpose of purchasing a building property. The accused had agreed to repay the said loan amount on demand. Accordingly, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.209580 dated 07.11.2004 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Rajajinagar II Stage Branch, Bengaluru for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- favouring the complainant towards the repayment of the loan amount. The said cheque when presented for clearing from the complainant's banker, came to be returned dishonoued with the banker's endorsement "funds insufficient". Thereafter the complainant issued a legal notice dated 13.01.2005. The accused did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for and the same are placed before the Court. Perused the materials placed on record. 5. Though notice was served upon the respondent, she remained unrepresented. As such, considering the nature of the case and in the best interest of justice, this Court, by the Order dated 06.08.2020, appointed learned counsel Dr.J.S. Halasetti as amicus curiae for the respondent in the matter. Similarly, since the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner also remained absent on a few dates of hearing, this Court, by its detailed Order dated 13.08.2020 appointed learned counsel Sri Amit Deshpande as amicus curiae for the revision petitioner. 6. Heard arguments of the learned amicus curiae for the revision petitioner as well as the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and to secure the presence of the accused, non-bailable warrant was ordered. Subsequently on 20.10.2016 at the application of the accused NBW issued against him was recalled. On 08.11.2006, statement of the accused under S.313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. On 20.11.2006, accused filed an application under S.311 Cr.P.C. which was allowed on cost of Rs. 200/- and the matter was posted for cross- examination of PW-1 on 20.12.2006. On 20.12.2006, accused sought for some time to proceed further in the matter, as such, as a last chance, the matter was fixed to 09.01.2007 for the cross-examination of PW-1. On the said day, accused remained absent, as such, once again NBW was issued against him and the matter was posted for arguments on the main matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s adjourned to 31.05.2007. On 31.05.2007, PW-1 and her counsel were present but no progress was made in the case and it stood adjourned to 14.06.2007. On 14.06.2007 also the same thing was repeated and though PW-1 was present, no progress was made and the matter was adjourned to 26.06.2007. On 26.06.2007, Further cross- examination of PW-1 was taken as 'nil' and the matter was posted for arguments on 06.07.2007. On 06.07.2007, at the request of the accused side, for arguments, the matter was posted to 11.07.2007. On 11.07.2007, the arguments were heard and the matter was listed for Judgment to be pronounced on 12.07.2007. On 12.07.2007, the impugned Judgment was passed by the Trial Court. 10. The above chronological events clearl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,00,000/- after selling her house. The said submission made by the complainant as PW- 1 has not been denied from the accused side in the cross-examination of PW-1. On the other hand, the complainant has produced the bank pass book of her Savings Bank Account with Vijaya Bank of Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru of account No.SB 27406 marked at Ex.P9 and her said Savings Bank Account Statement duly authenticated by the bank authorities at Ex.P10. The said pass book as well as bank statement clearly show that on 07.03.2004 vide cheque No.905838 the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to Chikka Honnaiah and on 09.03.2004, another sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid to the accused vide cheque No.905839. There was sufficient balance in the acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of posting receipt and returned RPAD postal cover at Exs.P3, P4, P5 and P6 respectively. The legal notice at Ex.P3 apart from explaining that the cheque issued by the accused has returned with banker's endorsement about insufficiency of funds, has also demanded the cheque amount from the accused. The returned postal cover at Ex.P6 shows that the addressee / accused even after having duly been intimated about the arrival of the registered postal article has not claimed it, as such, it has been returned to the sender. 14. Section 138 of the N.I. Act mandates giving of a legal notice but it does not mandate that the said legal notice must be actually and physically placed in the hands of the accused. When a legal notice has been sent wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
