MARTIN JOHN Vs. BABU RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the de facto complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate in a case where the accused (respondents 1 and 2) were charged for offence punishable under section 420 r/w 34 of IPC.

(2.) THE gist of the prosecution case is that the 1st accused had borrowed from the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and to discharge that debt, Ext.P2 cheque was issued by him and when presented for encashment, it was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. A notice was sent intimating the factum of dishonour. Though the notice was received by A1, he did not send any reply. Thus, a complaint was filed by PW1- the complainant, against A1 alleging offence under section 138 of N.I. Act. Later, he came to know that Ext.P2 was drawn on a cheque leaf issued to the 2nd accused and so there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the accused to cheat the complainant. It was alleged that A1 had made PW1 to believe that the cheque was drawn on the account of A1. According to the complainant, A1 and A2, in furtherance of the common intention, cheated PW1. The Police after investigation laid the charge sheet against both accused.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at length stating that since the evidence would show that the cheque leaf was issued to the 2nd accused in his account whereas it was signed by A1, and so it has to be accepted that the accused dishonestly issued Ext.P2 with intent to cause wrongful loss to PW1 and wrongful gain to the accused. Since, there was concealment of material facts by the accused that the cheque leaf was the one issued to the 2nd accused but it was signed by A1 and handed it over to the complainant, the verdict of acquittal given by the court below is unsustainable.