V.RAJENDRAN Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in S.T. NO. 2008/2004 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kozhikode, challenges the order of acquittal of accused in a prosecution lodged by the complainant for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act) before the court below.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the accused borrowed from the appellant an amount of Rs.85,000/- on 1.10.2002 for improving his tailoring business and undertook to repay the same within a period of one year. Appellant is a driver by profession. According to him, after receiving the loan amount on 1.10.2002, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 22.10.2003 for an amount of Rs.85,000/- in discharge of the past debt incurred by him. When Ext.P1 cheque drawn on Federal Bank Limited Cherootty Road Branch was presented, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Therefore, the complainant issued a demand notice seeking discharge of liability to which the accused sent Ext.P1 reply notice disowning his liability. Therefore, after completing all statutorily formalities, appellant filed private complaint before the court below.

(3.) On accused pleading not guilty, prosecution examined the complainant before it as PW1 and admitted Exts.P1 to P7 in evidence. The appellant stuck to his defence already put forth in Ext.P1 reply notice. According to him, he had no direct financial transaction with PW1- complainant at all. The contention is that when his friend DW1 Sabeesh Kumar needed an amount of Rs.10,000/- as loan he stood as a guarantor and on the faith of his assurance, PW1 advanced the amount to DW1. In short, his case is that the actual transaction was between DW1 and the complainant and he happened to issue Ext.P1 only as a guarantor cheque. According to him, the actual amount advanced by the complainant was Rs.10,000/- and not the amount mentioned in Ext.P1 cheque.