MUTHOOT VEHICLE AND ASSET FINANCE LTD Vs. SAINABA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') is the petitioner herein, who seeks special leave under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Cr.P.C.) to file an appeal against the order of the trial court by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused in his complaint under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner/complainant is that the accused, who is a lady, issued Ext.P2 cheque towards the discharge of a liability of Rs.15,200/-, but when the above cheque was presented for encashment dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund in the account maintained by the accused and the cheque amount was not paid in spite of the statutory notice issued in this regard and accepted by her. THErefore, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

(3.) THE fact, which is beyond dispute, is that the accused was the first guarantor of the loan transaction connected with the purchase of the vehicle for the son of the accused. THE cheque was issued by the accused on 23.9.2008 as per the contention of PW1. THE vehicle was surrendered in May,2008 and it was sold in September,2008 for Rs.25,000/-. According to PW1, the cheque was issued by the accused towards full and final settlement of the loan transaction. It is also the version of PW1 that the vehicle was sold on 16.9.2008 and the sale proceeds were credited to the loan account, in which the instalments are due from 7.11.2007 till 7.11.2008. Thus, according to PW1, Ext.P2 cheque was issued towards the discharge of the outstanding liability, out of the loan availed of by the son of the accused. THE specific defence taken by the accused by filing a statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is to the effect that no amount was due to the complainant from her and no cheque was issued as alleged and the complainant took away the bike belonging to the son of the accused and obtained blank cheque leaves signed by her under threat. According to the accused, the present case was filed misusing the said cheque leaf. It is true that no evidence is adduced from the side of the defence.