JOSEPH Vs. TOMI ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in C.C.No. 1453/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.7.2007. The court below held that Ext.P3 cheque was without consideration and hence, no offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted. The court below found the accused not guilty and acquitted under Section 255(i) of Cr.P.C. Parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

(2.) The prosecution case is that, the accused purchased a motor bike as per the hire purchase agreement executed by him, in favour of the complainant Company, agreeing to remit the value of the motor bike in 24 installments. It is alleged that the accused defaulted the installment from the first month onwards. In the circumstance, the complainant Company repossessed and resold the vehicle. After the sale of the vehicle, it was found that, balance amount is due from the accused, towards the price of the motor bike. The accused failed to repay the balance amount. Ext.P3 cheque was issued by the accused, after adjusting the sale proceeds, for the balance amount. According to the complainant, Ext.P3 cheque was issued, in discharge of defaulted amount of Rs. 18722.90 ps. The cheque was drawn on Catholic Syrian Bank Ernakulam dated 22.7.2004. The cheque was presented for collection through Cathoclic Syrian Bank, Chalakudy branch. It was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The complainant issued notice on 23.8.2004. No reply was sent by the accused nor any payment was made. Hence, the complainant lodged the complaint.

(3.) The defence version is that he has closed the entire transaction with the complainant Company and the vehicle was repossessed and that the complainant filed present complaint by misusing the cheque issued by him.