V.D. SEBASTIAN, THADATHIL VEED, KOZHAKARA, KURAVILANGADU Vs. AJAYMON, S/O. LUKOSE, KARINATTEL VEED, KALIKAVU, KURAVILANGADU AND STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in a case filed under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act challenges the verdict of acquittal given by the learned Magistrate. The case of the complainant is that he had lent Rs. 4,85,000/ - and to discharge that debt the accused issued Ext.P1 series two cheques, one for Rs. 2,65,000/ - dated 21.10.2000 and the other cheque for Rs. 2,20,000/ - dated 27.11.2000. When those cheques were presented for encashment, both cheques were dishonored on the ground of insufficiency of fund. On receipt of the dishonour memo statutory notice was sent. It was acknowledged by the accused. The accused/respondent sent a reply, Ext.P7 refuting the allegations contained in the statutory notice. Since the amount was not paid, the complaint was filed.

(2.) THE complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. The brother of the accused was examined as DW1 and Ext.D1 G.V.R was also marked.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the complainant submits that the evidence given by PW1 should not have been disbelieved by the trial court. The fact that Ext.P1 and P1 (a) contained the signature of the accused should have been accepted by the court below to hold that those two cheques were executed and handed over by the accused to the complainant. It is further argued that the case of the accused that he had simply kept the signed blank cheque leaf in the dash box of the lorry is un -digestible because it is not the common course of conduct to keep signed blank cheque leaf in the dash box of the lorry. It is argued that the accused did not offer any explanation why he had kept such blank cheque leaf in the dash board of the lorry.