MUKUNDAN Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No. 333 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Thrissur. The appellant had filed the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the first respondent. The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.37,000/- from the complainant and to discharge the same, Ext.P2 cheque was issued. When the cheque was presented, the same was dishonoured. The complainant had issued a lawyer notice calling upon the accused to pay the amount within 15 days. But the accused failed to pay the amount and hence the appellant preferred the complaint against the accused.

(2.) The accused put up a defence that he had not issued any cheque to the complainant. According to the accused, the cheque was issued as security while receiving the amount in an auctioned kuri of Navodhaya Kuries, to which the accused was a subscriber. The accused had repaid the amount.

(3.) On the side of the complainant, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. On the side of the accused, Dws. 1 to 3 were examined. The learned Magistrate, on considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to establish that Ext.P2 cheque was issued in discharge of a debt and legally enforceable liability and the accused was found not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and he was acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Against that judgment of acquittal the complainant filed this appeal.