C. MOHANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant has filed this appeal challenging the verdict of acquittal given by J.F.C.M. -II, Kannur. The complaint was filed under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. The case of the complainant is that the accused/respondent had borrowed from him Rs. 15,000/ - on 2.11.2002 and to discharge that debt Ext.P1 cheque was issued which on presentment was bounced on the ground of insufficiency of fund. Statutory notice was sent to the accused to which no reply was sent. The amount was not paid. Hence, the complaint was filed.

(2.) THE complainant got himself examined as PW1 and Manager of the Bank was examined as PW2. Exts.P1 to P6 were also marked. The accused was examined as DW1. The learned Magistrate found that the accused has rebutted the presumption under Sec.139 of N.I. Act. It was also held that the complainant could not adduce satisfactory evidence to prove that the accused had borrowed Rs. 15,000/ - from the complainant and Ext.P1 was issued to discharge that debt/liability and thus the accused was acquitted.

(3.) THERE is no case that the accused, he is an illiterate person. He had business transactions with the complainant. In such circumstances, the evidence given by PW1 that the accused had borrowed Rs. 15,000/ - and it was to discharge that liability Ext.P1 cheque was issued is found to be more reasonable and acceptable. The further fact that no reply was sent to the statutory notice would also strengthen the case of the complainant. Hence, on the totality of the evidence and circumstance I find that the complainant could prove that Ext.P1 was issued to discharge the debt of Rs. 15,000/ -. Since all other statutory formalities were duly complied with the conviction should necessarily follow.