MOIDEEN Vs. JOHNY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the complainant in case instituted against the respondent / accused alleging an offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) According to the appellant, the court below was not justified in acquitting the accused, finding that the case set up by the appellant/complainant that the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, and in repayment of that Ext. P1 cheque was issued in discharge of that liability, was not correct. In Ext. P5 reply notice, the accused had admitted the transaction between the two, admitted the transaction between the two, admitted some liability towards the complainant. In such circumstances, when Ext. P1 cheque had been admittedly issued by the accused and it has been proved that it has been returned for want of sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused, necessarily the case would have ended in conviction, it is submitted. In this connection, the decision reported in I.C.D.S. Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer ( 2002 (3) KLT 218 ) has been relied on.

(3.) It is submitted by the accused that there was transaction of gold with the accused and the cheque in question issued was a blank cheque. The liability, as mentioned in the complaint, had never been incurred. Therefore, there was no liability, as mentioned in the complaint, so far as the accused is concerned. In such circumstances, the court below was justified in acquitting the accused, the counsel submits.