P D ANTO Vs. P K RAJEEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the complainant in S.T. No. 3650 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda. 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 accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- and he executed Ext.P1 cheque. When presentation, the cheque was dishonoured on 24.3.1999 for the reason 'funds insufficient'. Accordingly intimating the dishonour of the cheque and demanding payment of the amount, the complainant sent Ext.P3 lawyer notice on 1.4.1999, which was received by the accused on 7.4.1999. But no amount was paid. Hence the complaint.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Magistrate ought to have found that Ext.P3 demand notice was sent to the accused and the same was received by him. THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that absence of deposition to the effect that the complainant sent notice demanding the amount is not at all fatal to the prosecution. THE learned counsel further submitted that the lawyer notice making the demand was marked as Ext.P3. THE learned counsel for the first respondent supported the judgment of the court below.