JOHNSON Vs. PREMJITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment in C. C. No. 1329 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class magistrate's Court, Karunagappallay. The complainant in the above Calendar Case is the appellant.

(2.) The case of the complainant was that the accused-respondent herein borrowed from him an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and issued Ext. P1 cheque towards discharge of the above liability which when presented to the bank for encashment was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused. Since the amount covered by the cheque was not repaid in spite of issuance of notice prescribed under the statute, the appellant filed the complaint. To prove the case against the accused-respondent, the complainant himself was examined as PW 1 and the Manager of the Bank was examined as PW 2 and Exts. P. 1 to P. 6 were produced. On the side of the defence, dws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. D1 to D3 were produced. After closing the evidence of the complainant, the accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr. P. C. He denied the allegations levelled against him. After considering the entire evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the complainant failed to file the complaint within one month from the date of acceptance of the notice by the accused. To come to this conclusion, the trial court relied on Ext. D1 notice which showed that the cheque in question was already dishonoured and hence the second notice issued against the accused-respondent was not within the purview of Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the records made available before this Court.