LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-418

KRISHNAREDDY Vs. T VISWANATH

Decided On July 19, 2012
Krishnareddy Appellant
V/S
T Viswanath Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises out of the Judgment of acquittal dated 27.04.2005 made in C.C.No.31 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai.

(2.) The appellant as a complainant preferred a private complaint stating that the respondent/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- on 19.11.2003 and agreed to repay the same within two months. But, he had not repaid the said amount and for that, on 19.01.2004, he issued Exs.P1 to P3 - Cheques, dated 19.01.2004, each for Rs.25,000/- totalling Rs.75,000/-, bearing No. 809258, 809257 and 809256, drawn in favour of State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore. The Cheques were presented on 05.03.2004 for encashment before the Indian Bank, Thally and the same were returned on 07.03.2004, with return memos, Exs.P4 to P6, indicating as 'insufficient funds'. Immediately, he issued Ex.P8-legal notice to the accused on 23.03.2004 and the said notice was not served and the postal cover was returned on 16.04.2004. Therefore, the accused, with malafide intention, after knowing fully well that there was no sufficient funds to honour the cheques, issued the cheques, thereby, committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) The learned Magistrate, after following the procedure, examined the witness as P.W.1 and marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P8 and placed the incriminating evidence against the accused, but, the same was denied by him. On the side of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 was marked. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused stating that there was no notice under Section 138 Proviso (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also the complainant had not proved that Exs.P1 to P3 were issued for discharging the legally existing liability since he is not having sufficient financial status to lend such money. Aggrieved against the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the complainant.