AJITHKUMAR Vs. REJINKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant is the appellant. His complaint filed under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act') against the first respondent, after trial, ended in a judgment absolving the accused of the offence. Questioning the correctness and propriety of the judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused, he has filed this appeal.

(2.) The case of the complainant in brief is thus: Towards discharge of a liability, the accused issued Ext. P1 cheque for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- promising its encashment on presentation in due course. The cheque presented, however, was dishonoured with endorsement 'payment was stopped by drawer'. Enquiry by the complainant disclosed that the accused had no sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque. Statutory notice issued intimating the dishonour demanding the sum covered by the instrument to the accused was responded with a reply raising false contentions. Complainant, thereupon, launched prosecution against the accused for the offence under S.138 of the NI Act filing the complaint.

(3.) The accused, on appearance, pleaded not guilty when the particulars of the offence were made known. Complainant examined himself as PW 1 and two other witness as PWs 2 and 3. He also got marked Exts. P1 to P12 to prove his case. Accused questioned under S.313 CrPC reiterating his innocence denied of having any transaction with the complainant. He examined two witnesses as DWs.1 and 2 the former to disprove the case of the complainant that Ext. P1 cheque was issued towards balance sale price of a motor vehicle in his favour and the latter to show that there was substantial difference in the specimen signature in the card maintained in the bank with that seen in Ext. P1 cheque, the signature of which was disputed as not having been subscribed by him. The learned Magistrate, after considering the materials produced, concluded that the complainant had not proved the due execution of Ext. P1 cheque by the accused and also that the transaction alleged by him relating to the instrument was not acceptable. The contention of the accused that there was variation of his signature in Ext. P1 cheque with the specimen signatures was found appealing to the Court below which concluded that there is no proof that Ext. P1 was issued by the accused to the complainant in discharge of a legally existing debt. In that view of the matter, the accused was found not guilty and he was acquitted of the offence imputed.