O.N.SATHI Vs. P.L.PREMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') is the petitioner herein, who seeks leave under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Cr.P.C.) to file an appeal against the order of the trial court by which the learned Magistrate in her complaint, acquitted the accused under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- from the complainant and towards the discharge of the said liability the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 31/01/2005, which, when presented for collection, was returned as dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in the account of the accused and the accused has not repaid the amount in spite of statutory notice served on him. Thus according to the complainant the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. During the trial of the case the complainant herself was examined as PW.1 and produced Exts.P1 to P5. The accused got examined as DW.1 and no other evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate, after considering the entire evidence and materials, has found that the transaction alleged by the complainant is shrouded in mystery and accordingly found that the complainant has not succeeded in proving the borrowing of Rs.1,80,000/- and the issuance of cheque in discharge of the said liability. Consequent to the above finding the accused is found not guilty and accordingly he is acquitted. It is the above finding and order of acquittal proposed to challenge in an appeal for which leave of this Court is sought for.

(3.) I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have gone through the judgment of the court below carefully.