ELANGOVAN Vs. P JAGADEESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.98 of 1999 on the filed learned Judicial Magistrate, Thriuchegode. THE respondent is the complainant therein. That was a complaint taken on file under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Pending trial, the revision petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1310 of 1999 to discharge him from the proceedings. That petition was dismissed. Hence, the present revision. Heard Mr.S. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.K Manimaran, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) THE only point urged before this Court by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the complaint as presented before the trial court by the complainant is not maintainable in law. In elaborating the submission, the learned counsel would state that, either a "payee" or a "Holder in due course" alone can file the complaint. THE present complainant is neither a "payee" nor a "Holder in due course" and therefore the complaint ought not to have taken on file. THE learned counsel took me through the necessary facts available in this case as culled out in the complaint itself, in support of his argument, about which I will refer a little later in this order.

(3.) A Division Bench of this court in the judgment reported in Sukanra Khimraja v. N. Rajagopalan, 1989 (1) LW 409 had an occasion to consider the issue as to who would be the "Holder in due course" as defined under Section 9 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The facts available in that case are as follows: