LAWS(MAD)-2011-7-254

N SEERANGAN Vs. V V KHALID HAJI

Decided On July 07, 2011
N.SEERANGAN Appellant
V/S
V.V.KHALID HAJI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the dismissal of C.C.No.104/2003 filed against the respondent for prosecuting him for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The complaint proceeds as if the complainant is dealing in raw materials for manufacturing cement and the respondent/accused is owning cement factory and medical foundation and he is known to the complainant for more than 1 = years and by taking advantage of such acquaintance, the accused approached the complainant for getting hand loan and obtained Rs.1,30,000/- on 28.10.2002 and on the same day, issued postdated cheque dated 30.11.2002, for Rs.1,30,000/- for due repayment of the amount. The complainant did not at the request of the accused present the cheque for collection on 30.11.2002 and the complainant presented the cheque on 03.02.2003. The cheque was dishonored for want of sufficient funds and the same was intimated to the complainant on 15.02.2003 and the complainant through statutory notice intimated the accused on 24.02.2003 about the dishonoring of the cheque. The statutory notice sent through registered post was returned as unserved and the same sent through courier was received by the accused on 27.02.2003. But the accused till date of filing of the complaint neither sent any reply nor discharged his liability. The complainant inorder to prove the case as stated in the complaint examined himself and the Bank Officer through which cheque is presented for encashment as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and produced Exs.P1 to P14 documents and the accused in support of his defence examined one Johnson, Police Constable attached to Kammacheri Police station, Kerala as D.W.1 and produced Exs.A1 to A5 documents.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the cheque issued was unfilled cheque and cannot be construed as negotiable instrument and the complaint is not taken cognizance within the period of limitation. Hence, this appeal by the complainant before this Court.