BEENA ANIL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED in CC. 89/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Cherthala is the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) THE case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the complainant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after called the Act). The case of the complainant in the complaint was that the accused issued Ext. P1 cheque in discharge of her liability towards the loan amount and the cheque when presented was dishonoured for the reason funds insufficient vide Ext. P2 dishonour memo. This was intimated to the complainant by Ext. P3 intimation letter. The complainant issued Ext. P4 notice vide Ext. P5 postal receipt and the same was received by the accused evidenced by Ext. P6 postal acknowledgment. The accused had not paid the amount. So he had committed the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act.

(3.) THOUGH , notice was served on the second respondent, on admission he remained absent. Considering the scope of enquiry and contentions raised this court felt that the revision petition can be disposed of today itself after admitting the same and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and dispensing with further notice to the respondent No. 2. So the same was admitted and heard today itself and disposed of.