N Bhanu Prasad Reddy vs C Sujatha on 19 May, 2026

    0
    24
    ADVERTISEMENT

    This appeal is by the Accused before the trial
    court, who suffered the judgment of conviction for the
    offence punishable U/Sec.138 of NI Act passed by
    XXXIV ACJM, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.58006/2023,
    dtd.4.10.2025, challenging the validity of the
    judgment.

    SPONSORED

    2. For the sake of convenience the parties
    hereinafter will be referred to with their ranking
    assigned before the trial court.

    3. The facts of the case:-

    The Complainant initiated private complaint
    under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the Accused,
    alleging that the Complainant is a home maker and
    her husband is a driver in school bus at Bengaluru.
    The Accused is her family friend. The Accused was
    acquainted to her by her husband as both of them
    hail from the same locality in Andhra Pradesh. The
    Accused is carrying on the business in hotel and
    restaurant in and around Tirupathi. The Accused
    requested a hand loan from her to met his immediate

    requirement of his business. In the year 2018 August
    3rd and 4th the Accused expressing his difficulty for
    his hotel business borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
    from the Complainant through RTGS from the
    Complainant’s (Cheque bearing No.63766 and 63767
    each for Rs.5,00,000/-) banker with an assurance
    that the amount would be paid back within 08
    months as he would mobilize the funds in the
    business. He also assured that he pays interest @
    2% per month till repayment of the entire principal.
    However, the Accused could not pay back the
    principal amount within the said 08 months and was
    paying the interest. Further stated that, in the month
    of December, 2019 the Accused acknowledging the
    payments agreed to repay the principal amount
    sought some more time. Accordingly, on 6.12.2019
    an agreement of hand loan was executed towards
    the payment by the Accused and issued 02 Cheques
    dtd.28.4.2023 for Rs.5,00,000/- each with an option
    to present the same for payment whenever he
    instructs to encash for principal amount. Again on
    22.2.2020 another agreement, renewing the earlier
    one was executed by the Accused thereby reaffirmed
    the Cheques drawn in favour of Complainant,

    payable at his banker State Bank of India, Leela
    Mahal Central branch, Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh
    assuring that the amount can be encashed on
    presenting the same. It is further submitted that the
    Accused was irregular in payment of interest and
    ultimately stopped the payment of interest in the
    month of Mach 2022. After many persuasions
    ultimately in the month of April 2023 he asked the
    Complainant to present the said Cheques and
    encash the principal amount and he would settle the
    interest at latter stage. When the Complainant
    presented the said Cheques through her banker for
    encashment, the same were dishonoured for the
    reason “funds insufficient” on 29.4.2023. Thereafter,
    the Complainant has got issued demand notice on
    dtd.5.5.2023 by RPAD, calling upon the Accused to
    pay the Cheques amount within 15 days from the
    date of receipt of notice and the same was served on
    the Accused on 18.5.2023 and 15.5.2023. Inspite of
    receipt of the legal notice, the Accused has neither
    paid the Cheques amount nor replied the notice and
    thereby, the Appellant has committed the offense
    punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments
    Act. Thereafter the Complainant approached the Trial

    Court for appropriate legal action against the
    Accused.



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here