ISSAC THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision Petitioner is the accused in S.T. No. 482/2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam. The second Respondent herein prosecuted the revision Petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with an allegation that in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, the revision Petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 75,000/- dated 24.12.2006 drawn on Canara Bank, Mallappally branch and that when the cheque was sent for collection it was dishonoured with the endorsement 'insufficient funds' and that despite the request to discharge the liability, no payment was made.

(2.) Responding to the process, the revision Petitioner entered appearance and pleaded not guilty. When particulars of the allegations were read over and explained, he pleaded not guilty. Hence he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution the second Respondent was examined as PW-1 and Exts. P-1 to P-6 were marked. When the revision Petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he took a defence that he didn't borrow from the second Respondent and there was no liability to he discharged and that the cheque in dispute is the one which was lost from his possession sometime back while on journey and that there is no consideration and that the second Respondent is not known to him and that the matter was reported to the bank. On the side of the revision Petitioner the Manager of the Canara Bank, Mallappally branch was examined as DW-1 and Ext. D-1, the ledger extract of the account was marked. Through DW-1, the 2nd Respondent also proved Exts. P-7 and P-8.

(3.) It appears that the revision Petitioner filed two petitions i.e., C.M.P. No. 1568/2008 and C.M.P. No. 1569/2008, one requesting to reopen the evidence to forward the cheque in dispute for expert opinion.