THOMASKUTTY STEPHEN Vs. PHILIP THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in S.T. 65/2012 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Ettumanoor, is the revision petitioner herein. The case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the complainant against the revision petitioner alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) THE case of the complainant in the complaint was that the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on 1.11.2011 and executed a promissory note and in discharge of that liability he had issued Ext.P1 cheque, which on presented was dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient' evidenced by Ext.P2 dishonour memo. This was intimated to the complainant by his banker vide Ext. P3 intimation letter. Complainant issued Ext.P4 notice vide Ext.P5 postal receipt and the same was received by the revision petitioner evidenced by Ext.P6 postal acknowledgment. He had not paid the amount so he had committed the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence the complaint.

(3.) W hen the revision petitioner appeared before the Court below, the particulars of the offence were read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as PW 1 and one witness was examined as PW 2 and Exhibits P1 to P7 were marked on his side. After the course of the complainant's evidence, revision petitioner was questioned under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him in the complainant's evidence. He had further stated that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from one John Parettu, and issued a blank signed cheque as security. Though he had paid the amount with interest, the cheque and promissory note were not returned and misusing the same, the present complaint has been filed. He had further stated that PW 2 is having enemical terms with him and that is the reason why he had deposed against him. He had produced Exts. D1 and D1(a) to prove his case.