G THIAGARAJAN Vs. A ANNADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the Judgment of acquittal dated 18.12.2007 made in C.C.No.178 of 2007 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode.

(2.) THE appellant as a complainant preferred a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stating that he is doing Grocery business under the name and style of "Angalamman Maligai Stores" at Dharmapuri Main road, New bus stand, Mecheri Post in Salem District. The accused is employed at Coimbatore and the complainant is known to him for the past several years. On 14.01.2006, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- for his urgent expenses from the complainant promising to pay the same within 6 months. To discharge the same, he issued two post dated cheques bearing No.253575 for a sum of Rs.25,000/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Peelamedu, Coimbatore Branch dated 14.02.2006 in favour of the complainant and another cheque bearing No.253576 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Peelamedu, Coimbatore Branch dated 14.07.2006 in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the cheque dated 14.02.2006 before the Indian Bank, Mecheri Branch, on 20.02.2006, the same was dishonoured. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode, which was taken on file in C.C.No.579 of 2006 and the same is pending. On 03.08.2006, the complainant presented Ex.P1-cheque dated 14.07.2006, bearing No.253576, for encashment before the Indian Bank, Mecheri and the same was dishonoured and returned under Ex.P2-return memo with an endorsement "insufficient funds" on 07.08.2006. Therefore, the complainant issued Ex.P3-registered notice dated 28.08.2006 to the accused and the same was returned on 06.09.2006 as unserved and not claimed and the returned cover was marked as Ex.P4 and the postal receipt was marked as Ex.P5. The accused issued the cheque after knowing fully well that there is no sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque, thereby, committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) RESISTING the same, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no cause of action and no notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submitted that in the notice, the address of the respondent had wrongly been mentioned and the same had been admitted by P.W.1 in his cross examination. Since notice had not been sent to the respondent in the correct address, no cause of action arose. He further submitted that the cheque was issued only at the Police Station after giving complaint on 13.09.2005. Hence, the trial Court has considered all the aspects in a proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion that Ex.P1 was not issued for discharging the legally enforceable debt. So, the Judgment of trial Court does not warrant any interference. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this order.