THOMAS KURUTHUKULANGARA PELLISSERY Vs. MATHAI CHERUPADIYIL KURIAKOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is the appellant. He preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in short 'the Act', before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur, as S.T.Case No.2328/1996. Ext.P1 cheque issued for Rs.32,000/- by the first respondent-accused was dishonoured, when presented. Therefore, Ext.P3 lawyer notice was sent by the appellant- complainant. On receipt of the notice, the first respondent had sent Ext.P6 reply. In it, he had admitted that an amount is due to the complainant. But he did not say the exact amount due. However, he further stated in Ext.P6 that he had sought for time, for payment of the amount to the complainant. But without heeding to that, the complainant had filled up the blank cheque, given to him, and shown a higher amount, in it.

(2.) To prove the case of the appellant, PWs.1 to 3 were examined. Seven documents were marked. One witness was examined on the side of the accused. The learned Magistrate, after appreciating the evidence adduced by both sides, found the first respondent guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Therefore, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and, also to pay an amount of Rs.32,000/- to the complainant, in default to undergo imprisonment for 45 days.

(3.) The first respondent challenged the same before the III Additional Sessions Judge, (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court-I, Thrissur, as Crl.A.No.175/2000. The learned Judge, finding that Ext.P1 was a blank cheque, issued as a security, and all other particulars in Ext.P1, except the signature, had been written by the appellant, concluded that Ext.P1 cannot be accepted. Hence, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused, allowing the appeal. Challenging the said order of acquittal, this appeal is filed after obtaining leave.