P KRISHNASAMY Vs. DELTA KNIT WEARABLES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against acquittal. The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.125 of 2001 and the respondents are the accused. It was a case instituted on a private complaint alleging that the respondents had committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet by judgment dated 19.11.2003, acquitted all the respondents. Challenging the said acquittal, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief would be as follows:- THE first respondent is a company, of which, the respondents 2 and 3 are the partners. THE respondents 2 and 3 were earlier known to the appellant. On 24.07.2000, according to the complainant, the respondents 2 and 3 on behalf of the first respondent approached him and requested for a loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. THEy assured that they will return the amount within 10 days. THE appellant accordingly, paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 01.08.2000 as loan to the respondents. While receiving the amount, in order to ensure repayment, a cheque for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- dated 11.08.2000 drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Tiruppur Branch bearing No.298853 was issued to the appellant. THE said cheque was signed by the third respondent " Mr.R.Balaji, as the partner of the first respondent company namely M/s.Delta Knit Wearables" and as assured by the respondents, the said amount was not repaid within 10 days. THEreafter, the cheque was presented for collection in the account of the appellant and on the same being forwarded to the Karur Vysys Bank Ltd., the cheque was dishonoured by the said Bank on 14.08.2000 on the ground that there was "insufficient fund" in the account of the first respondent company.

(3.) BEFORE the trial Court, all the three respondents took a defence that there was no legally enforceable liability on their part to issue the cheque. They also took a defence that the third respondent had money transaction with one Mr.Chellappan who is the brother of the complainant. Such money transaction between Chellappan and the third respondent commenced in the year 1995. In respect of one such transaction, the third respondent gave certain pro notes and cheques to Mr.Chellappan in the year 1995. One of the such cheque is pressed into service in this case. According to the specific case, it is not a filledup cheque and it was only a blank cheque but signed by the third respondent.