ANIL KUMAR Vs. RAMKRISHNA KARTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a person who is not the payee and not an indorsee is entitled to file a complaint under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. This is the question to be settled in the revision.

(2.) Facts are admitted. Revision petitioner issued Ext. P1 cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of Krishnadas. First respondent claiming that for consideration he received the cheque from the brother of the payee as the payee is out of India, presented the cheque for encashment and as it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, sent Ext. P4 notice demanding the amount and on the failure, lodged the complaint, which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate. Revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Learned Magistrate on the evidence of first respondent as PW 1 and Exts. P1 to P6 found revision petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him for the offence under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Alappuzha in Crl A 778/2005. Learned Sessions Judge rejecting the case of revision petitioner that first respondent is not a holder in due course and therefore is not entitled to file a complaint under S.142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and first respondent were heard.