ABDULKHADER Vs. ZUBAIR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. Appellant challenges the judgment of acquittal in Crl A 633 of 2007 of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track II (Ad hoc), Thrissur for offence punishable under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as NI Act). The appellant is the complainant in ST 279/2006 of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda, and the 1st respondent is the accused, he was convicted under S.138 of NI Act and sentenced to imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.15 lakhs under S.357(3) CrPC.

(2.) The facts considered for the indictment were that in May, 2004 first respondent approached the appellant and borrowed a sum of Rs.15 lakhs and in September, 2004 first respondent and his wife borrowed another Rs.15 lakhs (total Rs.30 lakhs) from the appellant. When appellant demanded the due amount of Rs.30 lakhs, first respondent gave a cheque dated 31/03/2005 drawn on SBI, Thriprayar branch for Rs.15 lakhs and his wife issued another cheque for Rs.15 lakhs to pay off the debt. When one cheque was presented for encashment through Irinjalakuda Town Co - operative Bank, Kattingahira branch, it was dishonoured for the reason of funds insufficient. Appellant gave a notice in writing to the first respondent on 21/06/2005 and demanded the due amount. There was no repayment, instead of that, he sent a reply notice denying the claim of the appellant. On the ground of non payment, appellant filed the above complaint in the Trial Court.

(3.) In the Trial Court, appellant was examined as PW 1 and his documents were marked as Ext. P1 to P11. The first respondent was examined as DW 1 and SI of Police, Mattannoor was examined as DW 2. The documentary evidence Ext. D1 to D27 were marked in support of the defence evidence. Trial Court after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the first respondent and sentenced thereunder. Against that, 1st respondent preferred the Crl. Appeal 633 of 2007 and the Additional Sessions Court acquitted the accused. Hence the de facto complainant preferred this appeal.