KRISHNARAJAN ALIAS SANKAR NARAYANAN Vs. K K NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is in appeal. His complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ended in acquittal. The case of the complainant is that the accused had borrowed from him a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in August - 2002 and to discharge that debt Ext.P1 cheque was issued which on presentment was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. On receipt of the dishonoured memo, statutory notice was sent. It was acknowledged by the accused but he failed to send any reply nor did he pay the amount. Hence the complaint was filed.

(2.) The complainant was examined as PW.1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked.

(3.) The learned Magistrate did not place reliance on the evidence given by PW.1 since according to the learned Magistrate there was inconsistency in the case set-up by him in the complaint and in the evidence tendered by PW.1 with regard to the lending of many to the accused. It was also observed by the court below that though the complainant contends that a Promissory Note was also executed by the accused, the complainant has not chosen to file a suit for recovery of the amount. Hence the court below found that if the accused had executed a pro note as alleged by the complainant, then certainly he would have filed a suit against the accused for realisation of the amount. But he did not file any suit. Hence, the court below disbelieved the evidence given by PW.1 regarding the transaction averred by him. Hence the accused was acquitted.