ARUMUGHAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C.No. 167/2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Punalur. The above said calander case was on the basis of a complaint filed by the appellant alleging that Ext.P1 cheque issued by the 2nd respondent for an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- in discharge of liability cast on him was dishonoured with the endorsement "funds insufficient". After completing the statutory formalities, the appellant filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Before the Trial Court, prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the defence PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. D1 to D4 were marked. After closing the evidence, the 2nd respondent was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the entire incriminating circumstances. The Trial Court found that the appellant had failed to establish the charge under Section 138 of the Act against the 2nd respondent and acquitted the 2nd respondent under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Trial Court misunderstood the scope of enquiry in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Act. The learned counsel also submits that on the basis of the decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court, the findings entered by the Trial Court are wrong. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the judgment under appeal requires no interference by this Court, as the Trial Court has considered the entire evidence in extenso.

(3.) Before considering the respective arguments of the learned counsel on both sides, it is advantageous to see the relevant provisions with regard to the liability created in a cheque under the Act. "Cheque" is defined under Section 6 of the Act, which reads as follows:--