ADINARAYANA Vs. SRI P.N. SRIDHAR BHATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Magistrate has acquitted respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act'). Therefore, appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') is before this court. The learned counsel for appellant absent. I have heard learned counsel for respondent.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate on appreciation of evidence has held that complainant has failed to prove that he had financial capacity to lend a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - to accused. The learned Magistrate has held that cheque was dishonoured on the ground that account was closed, however account was closed at the instance of bank. Therefore, learned Magistrate following the decision of this Court, reported in Nagaraja Upadhya Vs. M. Sanjeevan, (2007) CriLJ 3800 , has held when cheque was dishonoured on the ground that account was closed by banker, an offence under section 138 of the Act is not attracted.

(3.) THE accused has contended that complainant was in financial crisis. The complainant had approached accused to lend money. The accused pleaded his inability. The complainant pleaded that he would secure loan from one Basavaraju, for such purpose, complainant had obtained a blank cheque from accused.