N HASAINAR Vs. M HASAINAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-complainant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31. 12. 2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate first Class, Puttur, D. K. , in. C. C. No. 469/2002 acquitting the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N. I. Act.

(2.) HEARD the arguments of the learned Counsel for both parties and perused the records, the point that arises for my consideration is "whether the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is incorrect, illegal, perverse and capricious?"

(3.) IT is an undisputed fact that the respondent issued the cheque-Ex. P. 1, to the appellant towards repayment of loan amount borrowed by him from the appellant. The said cheque-Ex. P. 1, came to be dishonoured on account of insufficient funds when presented for encashment. It is also an admitted fact that in the cheque-Ex. P. l the amount in figures is mentioned as Rs. 75,000/-, whereas in words it is written as 'rupees Seventy thousand Only'. The appellant got issued the demand notice through his advocate demanding the cheque amount as Rs. 75,000/- but inspite of service of said notice the respondent failed to pay the cheque amount, hence the appellant filed the complaint. At this stage it is necessary to make it clear that merely because there is discrepancy in the cheque-Ex. P. l and there is difference in amount mentioned in words and figure, the cheque-Ex. P. l cannot be termed as invalid, in this regard Section 18 of N. I. Act provides as follows: where AMOUNT IS STATED DIFFERENTLY IN figures AND WORDS: If the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid is stated differently in figures and in words, the amount stated in words shall be the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid.