UMA RASHEED Vs. REMA ANI, KUTTIMURUPPEL VEEDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.05.2010 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta in Crl. Appeal No. 298 of 2008, which arose from the judgment dated 13.11.2008 rendered by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ranny in CC No. 164 of 2008, convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as, "NI Act"). The case of the 1st respondent/complainant (hereinafter referred to as, "complainant") is that the revision petitioner/accused (hereinafter referred to as, "accused"), who availed a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- for a legally enforceable debt, issued Ext.P1 cheque for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant. When the complainant presented Ext.P1 cheque bearing No.140216 dated 28.09.2005 drawn on the Kollam District Co-operative Bank, Kollam Branch for collection through the State Bank of Tranvancore, Vadasserikkara Branch, it was returned unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Upon receipt of the intimation from the bank on 17.10.2005, the complainant issued Ext.P4 legal notice to the accused through her advocate calling upon her to pay the cheque amount within the statutory time. The accused accepted the notice on 26.10.2005. However, she did not reply to the notice nor did she pay the cheque amount to the complainant as demanded.

(2.) The complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the trial court. Upon consideration of the complaint and documents, the learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and the case was taken on file as CC No. 164 of 2008.

(3.) On service of summons, the accused entered appearance before the trial court. Particulars of the offence were read over and explained to the accused, to which she pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, PW1 was examined and marked Exts.P1 to P6. After the witness for the complainant had been examined and before the accused was called on for her defence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as, "Cr.P.C.") for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against her. She denied the entire transaction and stated that the complainant and herself are family friends. According to her, she was in need of Rs.2,00,000/- to purchase the family share of the complainant's husband's sister, she was running short of Rs.1,60,000/- and the sister-in-law of the complainant agreed to accept a cheque as security for the deficit amount and owing to the request of the complainant, the accused had handed over a blank cheque purely as security to the complainant for handing over the same to her sister-in-law. In order to substantiate this aspect, Ext.D1 stop memo issued by the complainant to the bank manager was also produced. The sum and substance of her contention is that the antecedent transaction alleged by the complainant is false and the blank signed cheque has been with the complainant purely as security for another transaction.