LAWS(KER)-2010-12-411

THANKACHAN Vs. JOSE JOSEPH

Decided On December 21, 2010
THANKACHAN Appellant
V/S
JOSE JOSEPH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C.No. 721 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala. 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 first respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 75,000/- from the appellant and in discharge of the said amount he issued a cheque for Rs.75,000/- dt.11.11.1998 drawn on the Meenachil Taluk Co-operative Employees Society Ltd., Pala branch. The first respondent made him believe that he was having sufficient amount in his account to honour the cheque. The appellant presented the cheque for incashment, but it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The complainant sent a registered lawyer notice to the accused on 20.1.1999 intimating the dishonour of the cheque and demanding back the amount. Even after receipt of the notice, the accused did not repay any amount. Hence the complaint.

(3.) AT the time of argument, learned counsel for the appellant raised the following contentions. The court below ought to have held that the accused had conceded that Ext.P1 cheque was drawn on the cheque leaf issued to him by the bank. The court below ought to have held that the accused had admitted his signature in Ext.P1 and the complainant has no case that all the other entries in Ext.P1 cheque were made by the accused. PW1 had stated that the accused handed over Ext.P1 cheque after filling up the same and the signature was put in his presence. The defence set up by the accused is totally contradictory in nature and the story put forward by him is totally improbable.