ASHRAF S Vs. PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been indicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in ST No.175/2013 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thodupuzha, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent herein. Ext.P7 dishonoured cheque dated 10.12.2012 is for Rs.62,584/-.

(2.) Heard Sri. M.B.Sandeep, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (accused) and Sri.P.V.Baby, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent (complainant) Co-operative Society and Sri. Saigi Jacob Paletty, learned Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent (State).

(3.) R-1 (complainant) herein is the Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Thodupuzha. The facts relating to the transaction are broadly similar to the one considered by this Court in the order dated 8.8.2017 in Crl.RP No.893/2017 (Shaji v. Thodupuzha Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd.,2017 4 KLT(SN) 44), (C.No.48), wherein also the complainant was the very same co-operative Bank, viz. Thodupuzha Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. This Court by its detailed order dated 8.8.2017 in Crl.RP No.893/2017 has considered the various facets arising out of the agreement between the parties by which the accused therein had taken a loan from the said complainant Bank and had authorised the said Cooperative Bank by agreement in writing that on failure on the part of the accused to pay off the amounts covered by the loan agreement as and when demanded, then the Co-operative Bank concerned will be at liberty to fill up the blank signed cheque given by the accused in those transactions and that meticulous procedures have been laid down in those agreements between the parties regarding the manner and method for filling up the cheque consequent on the default made by the accused (borrower) and it was held that the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act will be attracted in such a transaction. Since the transaction in question by the very same Bank in this case is almost similar, it is only to be held that the findings made by the courts below regarding the transactions herein are legally correct and proper.