MATHAI KUTTY Vs. S. VIJAYALEKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dated this the 15th day of January, 2021 Appellant had initiated a complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I.Act'). The learned Magistrate after trial, found the accused not guilty and she was acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C. Assailing the said judgment, this appeal is preferred. For easier reference, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the trial court.

(2.) The complainant alleged that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and issued a cheque dated 2.1.2005 bearing No.166276 drawn on the State Bank of Travancore, Main Branch, Kollam. It was alleged that the cheque was presented for encashment through the Kollam District Cooperative Bank, Kannanalloor branch, but got dishonoured on 28.2.2005 with the endorsement 'Account Closed'. On receipt of communication from the bank, an Advocate's notice dated 28.3.2005 was issued. In spite of receipt of the said notice, the accused did not pay the amount due under the cheque and hence the complaint was instituted.

(3.) The complainant examined himself as PW1 and the bank manager as PW2 and marked Exts.P1 to P7. The accused did not adduce any evidence. After analysing the evidence adduced, the trial court found that though the procedural requirements of filing the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act was complied with and the complaint was filed within the period of limitation stipulated, the defence version regarding the issuance of cheque was found to be more probable and on that basis it was held that the complainant had failed to prove the commission of offence by the accused under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. It was also held that since the account was closed in 1999 and while the cheque was issued in 2005 it could not be said that the cheque was issued on an account maintained by the accused.