JAYA VENKATESA SUBBU Vs. JAYA BHASKARAN AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the judgment, acquitting the respondents/accused in respect of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellant-complainant has filed this appeal.

(2.) The trial Court acquitted the accused on two grounds, namely (i) the complainant has not produced any records to show that the complainant is a partner of the partnership firm in favour of whom, the cheque has been drawn, and (ii) the cheque was dishonoured on the reason that the account was closed arid therefore, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not attracted.

(3.) Assailing the above grounds, Mr. V. Sitharanjandas, learned counsel for the appellant would read the relevant portion of the evidence and contend that there are materials through oral evidence to show that the complainant is a partner of the partnership frim and the said complaint was presented through P.W. 1, being the partner of *Against judgment of Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, D/-23-7-l996. the firm and the said material ought to have been acted upon by the trial Court, especially when there is no challenge in the said aspect. He would also contend that the ground relied on by the trial Court that the cheque was dishonoured on the reason that the account was closed, is not a valid ground, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court that mere return of the cheque on the ground that the account was closed, will not be a reason to reject the complaint, so long as there is no amount available in the Bank on the date of presentation of the cheque.