MOHANAN Vs. BIBHUKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant is the appellant. He is aggrieved by the verdict of not guilty and the consequent judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Magistrate in favour of the accused-respondent.

(2.) THE complainant alleged that the respondent-accused owed an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to him. When repayment was demanded, two cheques for Rs. 20,000 dated 21. 9. 1993 and 8. 2. 1994 were issued. This prosecution relates to one of those two cheques. When the said cheque was presented for encashment it was dishonoured by the bank on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Notice of demand was issued. THEre was no useful response. Payment was not effected. It is in these circumstances that the complainant came to court with this complaint under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In respect of the other cheque also there was a prosecution. THE same has been compromised after making some payment, it is concerned by both sides.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant assails the finding that the cheque is not proved to have been issued for the due discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. THE learned counsel for the respondent/ accused on the contrary supports the said finding but assails the finding that a proper notice of demand has been served.