V.PAULOSE Vs. MUVATTUPUZHA CHITTY FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUESTION that arose for consideration in this appeal is whether a notice issued and served on the accused under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, without mentioning the number of the dishonoured cheque can be treated as a legal and valid notice in terms of the proviso 'b' of Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(2.) TO consider the above legal question, the necessary factual inputs are as follows: - The complainant in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act [hereinafter referred to for short as 'N.I. Act only' for convenience] is the appellant, as he is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20/12/2002 in C.C.No.1152 of 1998 of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Muvattupuzha, since the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.

(3.) WITH the above allegation, the complainant by filing a private complaint approached the court below, upon which, cognizance was taken for the said offence and instituted C.C.No.1152 of 1998 and during the trial of the case, PWs.1 to 3 were examined from the side of the complainant and produced Exts.P1 to P9 documents. No evidence, whatsoever, was adduced from the side of the defence. The trial court, after considering the entire evidence and materials and the rival contentions, among other, it was found that there is no proper demand from the part of the complainant in respect of Ext.P1 cheque for constituting an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as alleged against the accused and also found that the testimony of PW.1 contains contradictions and inconsistencies as regards the alleged transaction. Consequently, the accused are acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., finding that the complainant has not succeeded in proving his case beyond reasonable doubt. It is the above finding and order of acquittal, that are challenged in this appeal.