(1.) THE complainant in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I. Act') is the appellant as he is aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) THE case of the appellant/complainant is that being a financier, the complainant has executed the hire purchase agreement with one Babu Kuriakose as hirer and the accused in this case stood as the first guarantor for the said hire purchase connected with finance given to 2000 Model Tata bus bearing Regn.No.KL -8 R 2180. According to the complainant, towards the monthly hire amount and expenses, the accused issued Ext.P4 cheque for an amount of Rs.7,83,150/ -. and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured as there was no sufficient fund and the accused has not repaid the amount in spite of the statutory notice and thus, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. During the trial, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked and no evidence either oral or documentary was produced from the side of the defence. Finally, the trial court has found that the accused is not guilty under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and accordingly, he is acquitted. It is the above finding and order of acquittal sought to be challenged in this appeal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount covered by Ext.P4 cheque includes the total due amount including the expenses. It is also the submission of the Learned Counsel that though the resolution was not produced before the court, it is a fact that the complainant has already adopted a resolution authorising, one of the Directors of the company to prosecute the case and it is the said Director executed Ext.P1 Power of Attorney and therefore, according to the Learned Counsel, the finding of the court below is not correct that the complaint is not properly constituted.