SHIHABUDEEN Vs. NARAYANAN GANGADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 74 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Punalur against the judgment of acquittal dt.4.11.2003. 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.) THE case of the appellant/complainant is briefly as follows. On 20.1.1998, the first respondent/accused borrowed Rs. 1.5 lakhs from the appellant and for repayment of the said amount the accused issued Ext.P2 cheque dt. 21.2.1998 drawn on the Urukunnu Service Co-operative Bank. THE appellant/ complainant presented the cheque for collection through his bank, but it was dishonoured with the endorsement 'funds insufficient' in the account of the accused. Ext.P7 lawyer notice was issued calling upon the accused to repay the amount. But no amount was paid. Hence the complaint was lodged.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding of the court below that Account No.7336 is not maintained by the accused is wrong and illegal. THE learned counsel submitted that the accused himself has admitted in his reply notice and in Ext.D5 complaint that Account No.7336 was maintained by him and that Ext.P2 cheque was issued to him by the bank. THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below should have compared the admitted signatures of the accused in his Vakalath, deposition, Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement etc. with the signature in Ext.P2 and it would have been seen that all the signatures are put by the accused. THE learned counsel for the first respondent supported the judgment of acquittal.