A R SALIM THUNDATHIL PUTHAN VEEDU Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.451/1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Kollam. In the above case, he prosecuted the 2nd respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The 2nd respondent pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he was sent for trial. The appellant was examined in chief as PW1. While so, he went abroad. The case was further conducted by his Power of Attorney holder who was examined as PW3. The Manager of the Bank was examined as PW2. Exhibits P1 to P7 were marked.

(2.) WHEN questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the 2nd respondent took a plea that he had purchased T.V. and other household articles from the son of PW3, on installment basis and that at the time of transaction two blank cheques were issued as security and that the liability was later discharged. Misusing one of the blank cheques, in collusion with the son of PW3, the prosecution was launched. In support of the defence, 2nd respondent was examined as DW2. Another witness was examined as DW1. Exhibits D1 to D6 were also relied upon.

(3.) SINCE the appellant, who was examined as PW1, did not turn up for cross-examination, no credibility can be given to his evidence. PW3, the power of attorney holder had deposed in support of the prosecution case. It is also admitted by PW3 that his son was conducting business. The very evidence of DW2 is that he purchased T.V. and other household articles from the son of PW3 and as security two blank cheques were given and Exhibit P2 is one of the cheques so issued. DW1 also supports DW2.