VINOD KUMAR Vs. SHARFUDHEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment of aquittal dated 13.10.2006 in S.T. No.3083/2004 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Palakkad is challenged by the complainant.

(2.) Appellant/complainant filed a private complaint before the court below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(for short 'the N.I. Act'), alleging that in discharge of an existing debt incurred by the accused, who is the first respondent herein, Ext.P1 cheque dated 11.08.2004 drawn in the name of the appellant was issued. The cheque on presentment was dishonoured for want of funds to the credit of the accused. Even though intimation of dishonour and demand for discharge were made in writing to accused, he refused to accept the notice and thereupon after giving stipulated period of time prescribed by Section 138 of the N.I. Act, complaint was filed within time.

(3.) On appearance of accused, particulars of offence were read over and explained to him and on his pleading not guilty, trial commenced with examination of complainant as PW1. On his side, Exts.P1 to P7 were admitted in evidence. The case set up by the accused, while being questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short 'the Cr.P.C.'), is that he did not have any sort of financial connection or transaction with the complainant at all. He had issued a cheque drawn in the year 2000 in favour of 'Alikkal Finance' conducted by one Rajesh. In connection with a loan received from Sri. Rajesh, he had issued a blank cheque in the form of a security which was later misused. Therefore, his contention is that Ext.P1 cheque is not enforceable in discharge of the alleged legally incurred debt by him. On his side, however, he did not adduce any evidence though sufficient opportunity was given.