VIJAYAKUMAR AND ORS Vs. PEER MUHAMMAD AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are filed by the complainant in a case filed under section 138 of N.I. Act. The accused/respondent in both cases is the same. In the light of the submission made by the counsel appearing for both parties, both these appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) Crl.A. 2217/2007 is directed against the verdict of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate in S.T. No.1303/2005. The other appeal (Crl.A.2229/2007) is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed in S.T. 2636/2005. In S.T. 2636/2005 the case of the complainant (who was examined as PW1) is that the accused borrowed from him a sum of Rs.10,000/- and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 30.11.2004 was issued, which on presentment was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. On receipt of the memo from the Bank, statutory notice was sent to which a reply was sent denying the transaction. In the other case (S.T. 1303/2005), it is alleged that the accused borrowed from PW1 Rs.20,000/- and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 4.12.2004, marked in that case, was issued. When that cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds, whereupon, statutory notice was sent to which also a reply was sent denying the allegations made in the notice.

(3.) Both complaints, filed by the complainant- PW1, were taken on file. The accused pleaded not guilty. In S.T.1303/2005, the complainant got himself examined as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked. Similarly in S.T. 2636/2005 also the very same complainant was examined as PW1 where also Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked. In S.T. 2636/2005, the deposition of PW1 given in the other case was marked as Ext.D1.