VENUGOPAL COMPANY Vs. M P SREEVALLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 225 of 2000(wrongly noted in the judgment as S.T.No.225 of 2000) on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad against the judgment of acquittal of the accused dated 13.5.2003. 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 N.I. Act.

(2.) THE case of the complainant is that the accused, who had borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- from the complainant company on 10.5.1999 on the strength of demand Promissory Note, had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.38,500/-, which is inclusive of the principal amount and interest. When the cheque was presented for collection, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. THE complainant sent a lawyer notice intimating the dishonour, which was accepted by the accused. But she had not paid the amount within the stipulated period.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below ought to have found that the mere filling up of payee's name etc. will not amount to material alteration since the signature in the cheque is admitted by the accused. THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below ought to have found that all the necessary ingredients contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are made out by the complainant. THE learned counsel further submitted that the court below ought to have found that Exts.D4 and D5 judgment and decree were in different and separate transaction and the same do not have any application or relevancy in the present complaint. THE learned counsel for the first respondent supported the judgment of the court below.