S LEELA KUMARI Vs. MOHANAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C.No. 64 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - V, Thiruvananthapuram. The first respondent herein was the accused in that case, which was filed by the complainant alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY the case of the complainant is as follows. On 25.5.2000 the accused borrowed Rs.1,40,000/- from the complainant and in discharge of that debt, issued a cheque dt.25.5.2000 for the said amount drawn on the Central Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram. The cheque was dishonoured for the reason of insufficiency of funds. The fact of dishonour was intimated to the accused by sending a registered lawyer notice dt.20.6.2000, calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. Inspite of receipt of notice on 22.6.2000, the accused did not repay the amount. Hence the complaint.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence prima facie to suggest that the appellant had manipulated Ext.P2 by making additional entries therein. THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant has proved all the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and therefore the learned Magistrate is not justified in acquitting the accused. THE learned counsel for the first respondent supported the judgment of the court below.