LEELAMMA BABY Vs. R.ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the complainant in S.T No.173/2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kollam, and the 1st respondent herein is the accused therein. The complainant brought the said prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the allegation that a cheque for 1,00,000/- issued by the accused in discharge of the amount borrowed by him on 14.2.2004 was bounced due to insufficiency of funds, and in spite of statutory notice, the accused failed to make payment of the cheque amount. The accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained by the learned Magistrate. The complainant examined herself and proved Exts.P1 to P6 documents in the trial court. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and projected a defence that this is a false prosecution brought by the complainant by procuring a blank cheque handed over by the accused to the son-in-law of the complainant in another transaction concerning a partnership business. The accused did not adduce any oral evidence, but Exts. D1 to D3 were marked on his side.

(2.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that the complainant's case is suspicious as regards the consideration for the cheque in question. Accordingly, on the finding that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act stands rebutted by the accused, the learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty and he was acquitted by the judgment dated 9.11.2009. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the complainant brought this appeal with the leave of this court.

(3.) On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find that the complainant's case is really suspicious as regards the consideration for the Ext.P1 cheque. The case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed an amount of 1 lakh at her house on 14.2.2004. Nobody is examined to prove such transaction, when the accused has stoutly denied the transaction. The evidence given by the complainant in cross-examination shows that she is a money lender, and that she had no prior acquaintance with the accused. She does not know the details of the accused, and she does not even know where exactly is his house. She has no case that she had prior dealings with the accused or that she had occasion to have acquaintance with the accused. Admittedly she was a Government employee when the amount was allegedly lent by her. After retirement she started a medical shop. She was in the Health Department at the time of the alleged transaction. When asked about her source to lend 1 lakh, she stated that it was her husband's money. To explain that she stated that their house was under construction at that time and it must be the amount availed by the husband by way of loan for house construction. Thus the complainant strained much during trial to explain her source or resources to lend 1 lakh on 14.2.2004, when she was only an employee in the Health Department. The fact that she is the complainant of so many complaints brought in 2004 will indicate that even while working as a Government employee in the Health Department, she had money lending business. The case put forward by such a person will have to be viewed with suspicion.