MURUGAN FINANCE Vs. P V PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT in C. C. No. 262 of 1993 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Arani is the appellant. By the judgment (dated 15-10-1996), the Judicial magistrate, Arani has convicted the respondent/accused under Sec. 138 N. I. Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also imposing fine of Rs. 5000/ -. Aggrieved over the Conviction, the accused has preferred appeal before the District Court, Thiruvannamalai in c. A. No. 54 of 1996. By the judgment (dated 22-8-1997) the Additional Sessions Judge has reversed the verdict of Conviction and acquitted the respondent/accused. As against the Order of acquittal, the Complainant has preferred this Appeal.

(2.) FACTS which led to the present Appeal could briefly be stated thus : case of complainant is that the accused is bound to pay Rs. 4,65,000/- to the complainant, for which the accused had issued a Cheque bearing No. CQ 132675 dated 15-5-1993 drawn on the Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Arani. The accused requested the complainant to present the cheque after four months. Accordingly, the complainant presented the cheque for collection through his banker Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited on 11 -11-1993. The cheque was returned with endorsement "insufficiency of Funds". The complainant had issued statutory Notice (dated 16-11-1993) informing about the return of the Cheque and calling upon the accused to pay the amount of the dishonoured Cheque. The accused received the said notice and sent reply on 26-11 -1993 containing false allegations. Alleging that the accused had committed the offence under sec. 138 N. I. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint.

(3.) RESISTING the complainant's case, the defence is that the accused issued the cheque only as a guarantee and that the Penal provision of Sec. 138 N. I. Act is not attracted. Upon consideration of the evidence, learned Trial Magistrate rejected the defence version that Ex. P-1 cheque was issued only as a guarantee. Pointing out that the accused had executed as many as nine promissory notes between 15-5-1993 and 24-5-1993 learned Trial Magistrate found that an amount of Rs. 4,65,000/- is payable by the accused for which, he has issued Ex. P. 1 cheque, which was dishonoured. Finding that the penal provision of Sec. 138, N. I. Act is attracted, learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused under Sec. 138 N. I. Act.