P M MUHAMMED BASHEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant is the appellant. The complaint was filed under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act which ended in acquittal under Sec. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. According to the complainant Ext.P1 dated 3.10.1994 was issued by the accused to discharge a sum of Rs. 1,12,523/-due from him to the complainant. According to the complainant, he was a Sub-Contractor under the accused and Ext.P1 was issued to discharge a liability which on presentment was bounced due to insufficiency of funds and "account closed". Statutory notice was sent. But, the amount was not paid. Hence, the complaint was filed.

(2.) The accused contended that after retirement from Army he had undertaken certain contract work with KSEB during 1992-1994. He had entered into a contract with the complainant to carry out certain work at Kakkayam in Kozhikode under K.T.R. Scheme in the KSEB. Ext.D1 agreement was entered into between the accused and the complainant. The complainant had undertaken to carry out the work in a time bound manner without committing any default. He did not carry out the work as agreed upon. He left the contract work and sold away the materials entrusted to him for work. It was specifically contended by the accused that Ext.P1 cheque is unenforceable as it was materially altered.

(3.) Before the court below, the complainant got himself examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. The expert who examined the disputed cheque was examined as DW1 and Exts.D1 to D5 were marked. Exts.C1 to C4 and C5 were also marked. The court below found that the allegation made by the complainant that Ext.P1 was signed and issued by the accused to the complainant is not true. It was further found that Ext.P1 was tampered with. Since there is material alteration, rendering the cheque invalid and unenforceable the accused was found not guilty and he was acquitted under Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C.