SURENDRAN Vs. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the accused in C. C. No. 351/66 on the file of the Sub Magistrate's Court, Quilon-1. The complaint against the accused was that he committed an offence punishable under S.417 of the I. P. C. in that he issued a cheque and that the cheque when presented for payment in the Bank concerned was dishonoured. The learned Magistrate finding that there was a prima facie case has issued process to the accused under S.204 of the Crl. P. C. According to the accused the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offence by issuing process to the accused under S.204 of the Crl. P. C. as he should have found that the allegations in the complaint do not make out an offence. He filed a revision (Crl. R. P. 6 /1966) before the District Magistrate (Judl.), Quilon, to quash the proceedings of the Sub Magistrate. That was dismissed. Hence this revision.

(2.) To decide the question whether the commission of any offence is disclosed by the allegations in the complaint it is necessary to advert to a few facts. The complainant had joined the service of the United Traders (Regd)., Thiruvalla. On his joining the service he had deposited Rs. 500/- as security with the petitioner. The amount was refundable to the complainant after the termination of his services and after adjustment of accounts. On the expiry of the period of service, the complainant's services were terminated. The complainant then demanded the deposit amount he had given as security from the accused. The accused told him that he had no cash with him, but he, however, gave the complainant a cheque for Rs. 500/- drawn on the Marthandom Commercial Bank Ltd., Thiruvalla. When the cheque was presented in the Bank it was dishonoured as there were no funds of the accused in his account.

(3.) The contention of the accused is that these allegations, even if proved, would not make out the offence of cheating. S.415 says: