PULIMOOTTIL AUTOMOBILES Vs. MANOHARLAL, PROPRIETOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment in C.C.137/00 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam. It was an action initiated Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is the case of the complainant that the accused had issued a cheque for Rs. 1,51,392/- on 29.3.2000 towards the discharge of the liability which when presented for encashment returned with the endorsement of insufficiency of funds. Thereafter statutory notice was issued and action initiated. The defence appears to be that the accused is a dealer of Kinetic Honda Scooter and when the complainant who is also a dealer of the scooter was not able to achieve target, used to entrust scooters for sale to the accused and as security he had issued a blank signed cheque and further that for the scooters purchased on 26.1.2009 he had paid the cash and no amount is due from him.

(2.) In the trial Court PW1 and DW1 were examined. Exts.P1 to P11 and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked. On an analysis of the materials the Court below came to the conclusion that the complainant has not succeeded in proving that Ext.P2 cheque was issued in discharge of a liability and that the accused succeeded in showing that it was issued as a blank cheque towards security at the time of their business transaction. It is against that decision the present appeal is filed.

(3.) The point that arises for determination is whether there are any grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the Court below.