T K MADHUSOODANA KURUP Vs. ATTAKUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C.No. 1299 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara. 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. The accused approached the complainant at the complainant's shop at Mavelikkara on 25.12.1997 and requested him to lend him an amount of Rs.20,000/- As the complainant had only Rs.19,063/- with him, that amount was given to the accused and for discharge of the debt the accused issued cheque dt. 25.5.1998 drawn on Pathiyoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and requested to present the same on or after 25.5.1998.The complainant presented the cheque through Indian Overseas Bank, Mavelikkara on 21.8.1998, but it was dishonoured on 21.8.1998 due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The complainant received the cheque back on 2.9.1998. On 17.9.1998, he sent a registered notice to the accused, which was accepted by the accused on 21.9.1998. But the accused did not repay the amount. She sent a reply denying the transaction. Hence the complaint.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below went wrong in accepting the contention of the accused that there was no statutory notice as contemplated under Section 138 of the Act. 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 as such the learned Magistrate is not justified in acquitting the accused. THE learned counsel for the first respondent supported the judgment of the court below.