SANTHI C Vs. MARY SHERLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a complaint filed by appellant before Magistrate court, first respondent stood trial for offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short). To prove complainant's case, PW1 was examined and Exts. P 1 to P6 were marked. The accused did not adduce any evidence, but took up a contention that he received only a lesser amount from complainant and as security, he handed over a cheque in blank form to complainant. The transaction took place on a different date and not any date alleged by complainant. The blank cheque was misused, to file a false complaint, it is contended.

(2.) Learned Magistrate, after consideration of evidence and materials on record, acquitted the accused, mainly on the following observations and findings in paras 11 and 12 of the impugned order:

(3.) Challenging the order of acquittal this appeal is filed. When the appeal came up for admission, I heard learned counsel for appellant and he strongly argued that accused admitted execution in the reply notice and hence, the order of acquittal passed on the premise that there is no proof for execution of cheque is illegal. He read out the reply notice in court but it is quite clear from the reply that accused denied execution and specifically contended that a signed blank cheque was handed over by him to appellant, in connection with another transaction.