JUDGMENT
Appeal is by the complainant assailing the order of _
Court VI, Bangalore in Crl.A 748/2007 on 13. if T i
According to the complainant, the accused
him and had borrowed a sum of Rs.5 ialfhs«-durin$’Octoberii?iC(}i.<to.nieet h
out his financial commitments. tohpayi_:b:acH1;:i§within
three weeks, the accused had issuedliii LZOO4 drawn on
Centrai Bank, Kamalanagarv BrancvirpBiangaloreiiiifilQnrpresentation, the
cheque was funds'. After
issuing legai not_ie_ev,: was returned as 'left,
not claimed', é:omplainti'ea-mewto"hefiled.-i However, the accused also
appeared beforeahe trial"'-eourlt to service of summons.
Thereafter, _l;V€":iau£'1}f3d Magistrlate holding inquiry, while not accepting
thev.conAtent§oii ofthe iaovcused that the cheque was lost and considering
the cas"e.of'._theV':tcctised'y;'t'hat he had not borrowed the money, however
accepting the contention of the complainant that accused was running a
4i_iquoi'.s,bus§n_ess and for his financiai constraints, he had borrowed the
ll'.'i_'-.alntou~nti'.has°conviCted the accused. In the appeal preferred by the
we"
is concerned, of course even assuming that there is no proper serviceof
notice or there is irregularity, the fact remains that the accLised**’appc.are€§ _.__ i
before the court on receiving the summons. The acCuserl..,also has not
offered any plausible and acceptable explanation it t .i
the cheque and there is no relation betweenthe co’rnpla.ina1it»alnd. himself. V
The cheque is issued by the accused duly and no reason has
been offered to discard the ..i_.$htttrailablelii urith the
complainant. In the Cli’Cil’l1’1StaI1C6’l-3′, to rebut the
presumption available ithlelNpegotilablle”lnistruments Act, he
mmmmmmmdflfimmhfi
Accordingly; __lrn.pugned order of the lower
appellate court is se«t._Vasidei ; At:_ciu’s;ed is convicted to pay R525 lakhs
within six failing u}liich.,…h’e has to undergo simple imprisonment
tor two’1″n.()nths. » v ‘ .. Sdjl ..
JUDGE
_lA.n4 U