ISMAIL PILLAI Vs. MEERA SAHIB ABDUL JALEEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision Petitioner is the complainant in CMP. No. 3508/1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Nedumangad. It is a complaint filed against the Respondents 1 and 2 alleging offence under Section 420 IPC. It was alleged that on 24-10-1993, the first Respondent approached the revision Petitioner and borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- and that on 1-11-1993, a cheque for the said amount was issued. When the cheque was presented for collection it was returned bounced for two reasons; (1) insufficient funds and (2) drawer's signature differed. Though a notice demanding discharge was caused, no payment was paid. Consequently, the first Respondent was prosecuted alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in ST. No. 105/1994 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. During the course of trial, when the Manager of the Bank was examined, it was revealed that the cheque delivered to the revision Petitioner was drawn on an account maintained by the second Respondent. But it was signed by the first Respondent. Ultimately, the first Respondent was acquitted.

(2.) Thereupon, the revision Petitioner preferred the complaint on hand before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nedumangad. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the power of attorney holder and three witnesses. Ext. Cl was also marked. The learned Magistrate, going by the pleadings and the materials disclosed in the statement of the witnesses arrived at a finding that no offence was disclosed. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of that order, this revision petition was filed.

(3.) The materials disclosed by the pleadings in the complaint and the statement of the witnesses would show that the first Respondent borrowed Rs. 8,50,000/- to meet the marriage expenses of her daughter. At the time when the loan was availed it was promised that he would discharge the liability after selling his property. According to the revision Petitioner, after one week, the cheque in dispute was issued with dishonest intention to deceive the revision Petitioner. From the facts on record, it is not disputed that the cheque in dispute was issued for the discharge of the existing liability. In that circumstance, even if the allegation that the cheque was drawn on an account maintained by the second Respondent and that it was signed by the first Respondent, no offence under Section 420 IPC would be attracted.