SINDHU Vs. MATHAIKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED in CC. No. 522/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Court, Paravoor, Kollam is the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) THE case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the Act). The case of the complainant in the complaint was that the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of '.1,50,000/ - on 16.04.2007 and in discharge of that liability, she issued Ext. P1 cheque on the same day drawn on Federal Bank, Kalluvathukkal Branch. The cheque when presented was dishonoured for the reason funds insufficient vide Ext. P2 dishonour memo dated. 02.06.2007 and the same was intimated to the complainant by his banker vide Ext. P3 intimation. The complainant issued Ext. P4 notice vide Ext. P5 postal receipt and the same was received by the revision petitioner evidenced by Ext. P6 postal acknowledgement. She had not paid the amount. So, she had committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Hence the complaint.

(3.) CONSIDERING the scope of enquiry in the revision and also the question involved, this court felt that the revision petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent, dispensing with notice to the first respondent.