SRI.PREMANAND v. SRI.SHARAD KALLAPPA KHOT

the respondent, came to be dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved acquittal respondent, complainant has preferred this appeal.

2. The case of the complainant in short is that, the respondent-accused borrowed Z2,50,000/- from the complainant and not repaid the said hand loan. The respondent-accused issued a cheque bearing No.0836310 for ?2,50..000/- on 29.02.20O0 dçawn on Bank of Maharashtra and the cheque being on presented was returned by the banker on 13.02.2000 with the endorsement “Insufficient Funds” and” Refer to Drawef and the complainant issued notice to the respondent and not getting any positive S rt,ot sc (riapijiral ts1CtL,Y 1’h. c ‘del t,cl r ‘lab trial Cuur 3 lhc- ‘ii ü Court ‘lit rraflerwords tool up the ‘tc’ .w— •‘iya:ai e taRt n and aitti sCtVaC il flouCt thc xespondcnt nd the accused pleaded not guilty, tht complarnaut i as askrd to lead evidenec, and accordingl) IlK cornplaanni:t himself as examined is P W. 1 and prnduceO clocumcnts t E,xs P1 to P6 ‘Ihc accuse] also leal . b’s, ecaniirnng himself is I) W 1 r& submissic , cf accused is im of otal denial rn the given statement. Learned trial Julac afti’ p Ct tr g thc niden c ‘n reec’a. .i qut ted tIl i U I c ‘1 i £O1. I Cr •ti’ i tic w’ T per Ft-P the1i4cAj ‘q ‘, :ci r. ht bIer ‘%%L.td 1- i•1j .s c •..‘.‘ ‘1 ‘ tht b—rk ‘1t .nt t’”:’ r.,”t.i:t - 1 i l ii €“, ( ‘. 1”- C’•’1a’’ • dT • .,3! ...P ,‘, •t tt.— r1..ij. ‘ iiL %1f,1’ t f 4 instant case, cheque was returned with the endorsement “signature differs”, the question of 138 of N.I. Act being attracted does not arise. Second reason given by the trial Court was that, there was no legally recoverable debt and cheque was issued by the accused as security only. Third reason given was that, the signature on the cheque Ex.P1 differs from the signature on the vakalath Ex.P6. -All- sdP these reason the accused was acquitted.

5. Heard learned counsel Sri. Jagadish Path for the appellant and learned counsel Smt. Girija S. Hiremath for the respondent.

6. Submission of the appellant counsel is that, entire evidence appreciation by the trial Court is erroneous because in the bank endorsemnt issued as per Ex.P3, it has been clearly stated that the cheque was returned not only on account of “signature differs” but also on the ground of “insufficient funds’. Learned counsel refers endorsement at serial number 19 of the bank memo wherein is mentioned “insufficient funds”. Therefore, trial Court I as roflR hnlCWW that the tcUOfl 138 nf ‘l %ct does the as on band P s ‘ ai, I) iib’ is ibe ha’ idmitttd thc cr’S that. be bd sucd thc chcaUe and a’ b him a4 tlirretOW the uid CoU could pot ha” dtsbCht the ot the comPlhhtWt Leafl1 coun’S ai5t 4ygUCd that. W ,g.OO( troth the sam’ hank aeeW’ actl.iall’ enCU 0fter soUW’ and thcrCtOTt the cotidU’ of the cu% also SubroibMOri is goeS tO prOct tht ca$C of the coflP’ made thai t1 Ccnifl had tout)4 that. bcntt it coOl4 laVt got5ignati” comP11 juth3ut d0iug that. trial CoUfl has acquitt the acCUS1 oril’ hecau of ate gnaoremthdn1t siSi’’ cWfetS is such, sabt11i6°’ niade s that the 1.ttet t q’u’C’ 4 cofl441 stiOt’ b’ the tr.a1 . alP 0” Va iii r ct $ Cr’ • ji icwh Ic n 1 n- , r rtSf.t n . 1J4. d’r Ct tn& ir “C’ . t.:l’ it batfrafhft0t cr er.t iaP ri ‘jar ‘ 1 ” a’ *1£5” ILL -liti 1 • U C’ ‘tj I hr “sini if;Lrc Ij rs’ P.’ tetc, . the • ( Ott t cJ :tp; •f • t[ •“ ‘ha’ th(.. S. ‘i.,ti ‘.: \ T ‘. isntat’iIti I ri’! ‘i’isrl I r’c4’h 1 ..% S%tt t Ut(lISt * (‘ a H4nino thus Ji ‘ it’d both tftci goinw F .ugh U rcas ii isswr c o r uh ‘ii th Sri tin 1 I 4.t ty ‘hg t1 t.ed ‘ t iiiitetittd the. hank endorqt’men: at Es P3 also njrnijnni-d a! ci rid! number 1 s I r ir • art fn’ u’t I i jit o I ‘P rue .l ‘at’ t ‘n £‘ .i.i.J dS st;r I. :e . •it .‘ t • j ?•• .;‘ n•i pr •;u- r “St •,tl i( 4’t” ‘, ‘ t ‘ ci P’i . ‘10 I. i ••.‘hi. I. ‘ii.? ,:‘ ‘: ‘ :—: —. . •• • . ••• . • • — ••_ • •• It It. .1 I • I& 7

9. For the above reasons, in my view, the matter requires remand to the trial Court for fresh consideration on all the aspects of the matter and therefore the following order is passed. The appeal is allowed. The judgement of acquittal passed by the trial Court is set aside. The matter remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. MBS/ Sd/ JUDGE