RAMAKRISHNA B.K. Vs. NARAYANA BHAT.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the complainant in C.C. No.103/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II (Additional Munsiff), Kasaragod. The complaint was instituted by the appellant alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, hereinafter referred to as the Act. According to the appellant, in consideration of a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- borrowed from him by the 1 st respondent, a cheque for Rs.1,75,000/- dated 25.06.2009 drawn on Bayar Service Co-operative Bank, Bayar was issued to him. He presented the cheque for collection, but it was returned dishonoured on 05.10.2009 due to insufficiency of funds. The matter was duly intimated to the 1st respondent through a lawyer notice, which was served on him. But the amount was not paid nor a reply was sent and, aggrieved by the same, he moved the complaint. On appearance on summons, the 1st respondent pleaded not guilty.

(2.) The complainant gave evidence as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked. On closing the evidence of the complainant, when examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C., the 1st respondent denied the allegation that he had borrowed Rs.1,75,000/- and issued the Ext.P1 cheque in consideration of the same. He admitted the borrowal of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant, but denied the other handwritings on the cheque. According to him, he had given the Ext.P1 as signed blank cheque to the appellant, which has been misused by incorporating a huge amount as consideration; there is no legally enforceable liability to pay Rs.1,75,000/-; Ext.P3 notice is barred by limitation.

(3.) There was no evidence in defence for the 1 st respondent. On the contentions, three points were raised by the learned Magistrate. After hearing counsel on both sides, by the impugned judgment, the learned Magistrate found not guilty and acquitted the 1 st respondent under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has preferred this appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.