RAMESH Vs. M M BADRUDHEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant is the appellant. His complaint filed against the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, for short, the 'N.I. Act', after trial, ended in a judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, questioning its legality, propriety and correctness, he has come up with this appeal.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that towards discharge of a loan availed, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque for a sum of Rs. 48,000/- promising its encashment on presentation in due course. The cheque presented, was however, dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Statutory notice issued intimating dishonour and demanding the sum covered by the cheque was not responded with any reply or payment. Hence, the complaint was launched to prosecute the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) The accused, on appearance, pleaded not guilty when the particulars of the offence were made known. Complainant got himself examined as PW1 and exhibited Exts.P1 to P3 to prove his case. Accused questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. maintaining his innocence contended that he had availed a loan of Rs. 15,000/- from one Shahul Hameed, on which, Rs. 10,000/- was discharged by daily payment. The balance of Rs. 5,000/- alone was outstanding, and the case has been foisted on false allegations. He examined one witness as DW1 to prove his defence.