RAMESH KUMAR Vs. SHAHIDA BEEVI; STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant laid a complaint against the first respondent on the basis of a dishonoured cheque for a sum of Rs.62,500/- dated 20.05.2005. It was alleged that the cheque was issued towards the discharge of an existing liability and on presentation, it was returned dishonoured. After issuing a statutory notice, which was not replied, a complaint was laid alleging that the amount due was not paid even after receipt of the notice. The accused appeared and denied the allegations. Both sides proceeded for trial. On the side of the complainant, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. The court below, after a brief evaluation of the available inputs concluded that the complainant had failed to prove that the cheque was issued towards a legally recoverable debt and hence, acquitted the accused. This is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) In spite of service of notice on the first respondent, she has not appeared to contest the proceeding. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the records.

(3.) The evidence of the complainant is essentially the oral testimony of PW1. According to him, the accused had offered a visa to him and towards that, a sum of Rs.60,000/- was paid on 03.01.2005. Towards the medical expenses, another sum of Rs.2,500/- was also paid. Since the visa could not be arranged, he started demanding return of the money and ultimately, cheque dated 20.05.2005 was delivered to him on 05.02.2005. He deposed in accordance with his complaint and stated that the accused had an intention to cheat him. He also asserted that in spite of service of notice, the amount was not repaid. His version was consistent and could not be demolished in cross examination.