M.A. PAPPACHAN Vs. RAJAPPAN, S/I. EKKAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT is the appellant. Complaint was filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused/respondent was acquitted under Sec. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The case of the complainant is that the accused had borrowed from him an amount of Rs. 1,80,000.00 in 1998. When the appellant demanded for return of money, accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 15-5-1998. When presented for collection it was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of fund. Hence, statutory notice was sent. But the respondent failed to pay the amount.

(2.) THE complainant got himself examined as P.W.1 and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked. On the side of the accused one witness was examined as DW1 and Ext.D1 was marked.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the complainant submits that the court below should not have accepted the evidence given by D.W.1. The transaction mentioned in Ext.D1 had taken place in 1997 where as the money was lent by P.W.1 to the accused in 1998 and since no evidence was adduced on the side of the accused, the court below should have accepted the case of the complainant. As stated earlier, it was not stated in the complaint as to the date when a sum of Rs. 1,80,000.00 was alleged to have been lent by P.W.1 to the accused. No document was produced by the complainant to show that he was in possession of that much amount so as to lend Rs. 1,80,000.00 to the accused. Though, in evidence P.W.1 says that the lending was some where in May, 1998, the court below was not inclined to accept that elusive and evasive statement.