K V SOORYAN Vs. KOCHI SREEDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal with leave is filed by the complainant in C.C. 305/98 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Payyannur assailing the acquittal of the first respondent of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act vide Section 255 (1) of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) The appellant filed complaint in the Court below alleging that the first respondent borrowed from him an amount of Rs. 25,00,000 on 5.3.1998 on condition that it would be repaid on 18.3.1998; that on 18.3.1998 the first re spondent issued Ext. P1 cheque drawn at the Karivellur branch of the Syndi cate Bank for an amount of Rs. 25,000 in discharge of the said debt; that on presentation of the cheque for encashment at the drawee Bank on 19.3.1998,it was returned dishonoured vide Ext.P2 memorandum for reason of "insuffi ciency of funds" in the account of the first respondent; that consequently, on 27.3.1998 the original of Ext. P3 notice was caused to be issued through law yer to the first respondent intimating him of the dishonour of the cheque and demanding payment of the cheque; that the said notice was received by the first respondent under Ext. P3(b) acknowledgement card, but he has not cared to make payment of the amounts covered by the cheque either within the statutory period or ever thereafter and thus, he has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) On appearance of the first respondent in the Court below pursuant to issuance of summons, he was questioned by the learned Magistrate reading over the particulars of the offence and explaining it to him. Thereupon, he pleaded not guilty and consequently a trial of the case was conducted by the Court below. The appellant complainant tendered evidence as PW1 and got marked Exts. P1 to P3(b). On the appellant complainant closing his evidence, the first respondent was questioned by the learned Magistrate under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Thereupon, he generally denied by incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. How ever, he did not adduce any evidence in defence.