FRANCIS ANTONY K.G. Vs. SUMA JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the complainant and the first respondent the accused in C.C. No. 529/2013 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Kochi. In the complaint it was alleged that on 30.01.2011 the first respondent borrowed from the appellant Rs. 20 lakhs and later to discharge the liability she issued a cheque bearing date 27.8.2012 and it was returned dishonoured by the bank for want of sufficient fund in her account and despite demand by notice she failed to pay the amount and thus she committed the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act. The trial court came to the conclusion that the evidence adduced by the appellant did not prove execution of the cheque by the first respondent and accordingly the learned Magistrate acquitted her of the offence.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant.

(3.) IN the cross -examination of the appellant, who was examined as PW1, questions were put to him regarding his relationship with the family of the first respondent. He said that he knew the family for eight years. Though both parties resided in the same locality, the appellant had never gone to the first respondent's house; he had never talked to the first respondent on phone. The first respondent resided in a rented house. The appellant did not know the native place of the husband of the first respondent. I have no doubt that the allegation that the appellant and the first respondent were family friends is false. It appears that as they resided in the same locality they had a nodding acquaintance. It is quite unnatural that the appellant advanced a loan of Rs. 20 lakhs to the first respondent free of interest without obtaining any document to evidence the transaction.