P.E. SOUDAMINI Vs. N. SAJEEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the complainant in S.T. No. 29 of 2005 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Munsiff), Payyannur, and the first respondent herein is the accused in the said case. The complainant prosecuted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the allegation that a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- issued by the accused in discharge of the price of a pumpset purchased by him from the complainant was bounced due to insufficiency of funds, and in spite of statutory notice, the accused failed to make payment of the cheque amount.

(2.) The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him. The complainant examined herself, and proved Exts. P1 to P16 documents. The defence projected by the accused is that the cheque in question was in fact handed over as a blank cheque in 2002, that he had no transaction with the complainant in 2004 as alleged in the complaint, that he has not in fact issued a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- as alleged by the complainant, and that he has already discharged the debt or the value of the article purchased by him from the complainant. Thus practically, he contended that the cheque is not supported by consideration, and the cheque in question was not in fact duly executed by him for any amount due. In defence, the accused examined himself as DW 1 with the permission of the court, and also proved Exts. D1 to D5 documents. Ext. C1 report of comparison of writings on the cheque was also admitted in evidence.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that the case of the complainant is suspicious, that she has not proved the due execution of the cheque to the satisfaction of the court, that the accused has already discharged major portion of the debt, and that the cheque is not actually supported by consideration, or that the accused is not in fact liable to pay the cheque amount. Accordingly, by judgment dated 27.08.2008, the trial court acquitted the accused. Against the judgment of acquittal, the complainant has brought this appeal with the leave of this Court.