SUBHASH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition seeking Special Leave of this Court under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C., for filing Crl.Appeal so as to impugn the judgment rendered on 21.06.2017 by the trial court concerned (Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, (Addl.Munsiff) Palakkad), whereby, the accused in S.T.No.57/2016 has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner herein is the complainant and the second respondent herein is the accused in the above said S.T.No.57/2016.

(2.) Heard Sri.K.Abdul Jawad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (complainant) and Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Prosecutor for R-1 State.

(3.) The basic case set up in the complaint is to the effect that the accused had borrowed Rs.2,40,000/- from the complainant and in discharge of the said liability, the accused had issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 07.02.2014 for Rs.2,40,000/- drawn from his account at the Industrial Development Bank of India, Palakkad, in favour of the complainant and that the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds as per Ext.P2 memo dated 15.02.2014 and thereupon, the complainant had issued Ext.P3 statutory demand notice dated 12.03.2014 calling upon the accused to pay off the amount shown in the cheque within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and that the said notice sent by Registered Post was received on the address of the accused as evident from Exts.P3(a) and P3(b). The accused had not sent any reply thereto and after following the requisite formalities in that regard, the complainant has instituted the above complaint which resulted in the trial. During the trial, the complainant was examined as PW1 and has marked Exts.P1, P2 and P3 series documents. Defence has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. The trial court, by the impugned judgment, has found that the accused is entitled for acquittal in view of the following reasons: