V.R.ANEESH Vs. RENJITH CHANDRAKUMAR

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 special 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 his complaint, acquitted the accused under Section 255 (1) of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed Rs.1 lakh from the complainant on 24.7.2008 and on that date itself, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 24.1.2009 towards the discharge of the said liability and the said cheque was dishonoured, when presented for encashment as there was no sufficient fund in the account of the accused and the accused has not paid the amount in spite of statutory notice and therefore, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. During the trial of the case, Pws.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked from the side of the complainant. Fromm the side of the defence, Dws.1 to 3 were examined, but no document is produced. Exts.C1 to C1(b) were marked as court exhibits. The trial court, finally, has found that the complainant has failed to prove the execution of Ext.P1 cheque and therefore, he is not entitled to get the benefit of presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the N.I.Act. Based upon such finding, the accused is found not guilty and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C. It is the above finding and order of acquittal sought to be challenged by filing an appeal for which leave of this Court is sought for.

(3.) Heard Sri.G.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner and I have also perused the judgment sought to be impugned.