C BHASKARAN NAIR Vs. B MOHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant is the appellant. His complaint against the 1st respondent, hereinafter referred to as the 'accused', for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, the 'N.I. Act', after trial, ended in acquittal of the accused. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, questioning its legality, propriety and correctness, he has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that the accused issued Ext PI cheque for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- towards discharge of a loan for the above sum, availed one month earlier, promising its encashment on presentation before the bank in due course. The cheque presented, was however, dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Statutory notice issued intimating the dishonour of the cheque and demanding the sum covered by the instrument was responded with Ext.P6 reply notice, raising untenable contentions. The complainant thereupon launched prosecution against the accused for the offence punishable 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 examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exts.P1 to P6 to prove his case. The accused in his reply notice, Ext.P6, had contended that he had no transaction with the complainant but only with his son to whom he had given two cheques as security. He had further contended in the reply that one of the two cheques had been misused by the complainant in collusion with his son to set up a false case against him. During the cross examination of the complainant, examined as PW1, the version presented in the reply notice was set up as the defence of the accused. When questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, he maintained his innocence. No defence evidence was adduced.