T J EDWARD Vs. C A VICTOR IMMANUEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The legality, propriety and correctness of the order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Crl.R.P.No.68/95 setting aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Ist Class Magistrate - 1, Kochi in Crl.M.P.No.5288/95 in S.T.No.935/94 is under challenge in this revision.

(3.) The basic facts necessary for appreciating the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner challenging the impugned order are to be stated here. The complaint petition was filed by the revision petitioner against the Ist respondent alleging commission of an offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended (for short, 'the Act') and the allegation made therein was that the Ist respondent borrowed from him Rs.70,000/- and issued cheque dated 14-4-1994 in discharge of that debt or liability. It was further alleged in the complaint that the cheque, when presented for collection, was returned as unpaid by the drawee bank with the endorsement 'account closed'. It was further alleged in the complaint that on receipt of information regarding bouncing back of the cheque, notice in terms of the proviso to S.138 of the Act was sent and that debt was not discharged by the 1st respondent within 15 days of receipt of that notice. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under S.138 of the Act and issued process. Trial commenced and complainant was examined. When the branch manager of the drawee bank was examined