K T LALU Vs. KALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant initiated prosecution against the first respondent for the offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The prosecution ended in conviction. In the appeal by the first respondent the conviction was set aside and he was acquitted. Therefore, this appeal. The facts of this case are as follows:

(2.) Ext. P1 cheque is the cheque in question. It was drawn on 20.7.1993 on Kuruvilassery Service Cooperative Bank for an amount of Rs. 21,500/-. It was sent for collection through the banker of the complainant on 12.1.1994. It was returned bounced as per Ext. P3 memo dated 24.1.1994 of the drawee bank with the endorsement refer to drawer. Obviously, the meaning is that there was no sufficient fund in the account. Statutory notice was issued and the same was returned unclaimed. The amount was not paid. Therefore, the prosecution was initiated.

(3.) The submission of the appellant is that the Trial Court has rightly appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the first respondent. The Sessions Judge ought not have reversed the conviction. The cheque had been duly presented for collection within six months from the date of the cheque. Therefore, there was due presentation within the time. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that the cheque was presented beyond six months. Had it been so, the drawee Bank ought to have in Ext. P3 memo mentioned it as a reason. On the other hand, Ext. P3 memo discloses that the cheque was returned with the endorsement refer to drawer. It shows that presentation of the cheque was within the time allowed by the statute. So, the offence had been omitted by the first respondent.