RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT. V ”
THE AmmmL(xmMNG ON Hmzfinwuwfiegfifid,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE I5’OLLOWIN.’Cu}.”: V ‘ 2. i
JUDeMEN:m-_
This appeal is by the complainani’againsvfxtile ‘t)rd’ei””0fV
acquittal passed by the-. » JMP’C’,~. _ in
C.C.N0.242/2001.
2. The Cornplaixiaiai’isiisaidsftg inanager of the
finance by him alleging
that wRs.1,50,000/- during
Decemhdver demand promissory note was
executed” in fa\}0»1..1’1i~:.ij,'(‘A,-fidtiiieé’Veornpiainant agreeing to pay
interest at 24% ‘When the complainant demanded for
drettidfn .*hV”e,_arn0unt, a Cheque drawn on Andhra Bank,
AsShiIn0dgad’v-.ras Viissvued. The said cheque was presented for
CO11€’CtiOE..%}jiCh came to be dishonoured with an
K””‘.__VV’end0rsement ‘funds insufficient’. After issuance of legai
fiw,
notice, a complaint was filed by the manager of the finance
company.
3. After enquiry, the said complaint byi b
the trial Court on the grounds thatilthelcheqltie Wash: is-sued
a security; that the complainant faileddto establish thatl.thel”i.o
cheque was issued for legLail3r_l_ debt
and also on the groi.in’d_ looiaiplainantlilldoes not
disclose as to for what amount was
borrowed as is to show that the
accused is £ioirig. _c:’e{ l*a._rge scale. ksuingwiegxzs .
il;. Heard’lt’bVeV_ off the learned Counsel for the
appellarit. .
._fl5g,5E.__?Learnedl”Counsel for the appellant submits that it
was”v11o.fgl”‘th’er’burden on the complainant to prove the
business’ is being carried on by the accused and
regarding.’ the borrowing of the loan, the initial presumption
it ‘iryfavlour of the complainant. Adrnittediy, the cheque is
‘ by he accused towards legally recoverable debt.
‘XL;/’