P. RADHA Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT is the appellant. She filed a complaint stating that the accused/respondent had borrowed from her Rs. 5 lakhs promising to repay the same within six months. According to her the amount was borrowed for his business purpose. Since the amount was not repaid, when demanded Ext.P1 cheque was issued, which on presentment was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. On receipt of the dishonour memo statutory notice was sent to which no reply was sent. The amount was also not paid. Hence the complaint was filed.

(2.) THE complainant got herself examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. The Bank Manager was examined as DW1 to prove the ledger extract of the account maintained by PW1. Exts.D1 and D2 were also marked.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the complainant submits that since Ext.P1 cheque dated 1.3.2004 was signed and issued by the accused, the presumption under Secs. 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act is available to the complainant and that presumption was not duly rebutted by the accused and hence court below should have accepted the case of the complainant. It is further contended that the theory advanced by the accused that he had handed over two signed blank cheque leaves to the Co -operative Bank for the advance given by the Cooperative Bank for supplying the rice should not have been accepted by the learned Magistrate since it is highly unbelievable that Co -operative Bank would collect such signed blank cheques either as advance or for any other purpose.