W.B.T. PRAKASH Vs. ELANGOVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in C.C. No. 4009 of 2003 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, is the appellant. The appellant filed the above complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that complaint was dismissed and the respondent/accused was acquitted and aggrieved by the same, this Appeal is filed.

(2.) THE case of the complainant is that due to business transaction between the appellant and the accused, the accused gave a Cheque bearing No. 146279 dated 14.3.2003 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - towards the discharge of the loan payable by him and that cheque was presented on 8.4.2003 for collection and the same was returned on 9.4.2003 stating that there was no sufficient funds in the account of the respondent/accused. Therefore, a statutory notice dated 14.4.2003 was issued by the appellant. The respondent/accused sent a reply dated 20.4.2003 stating that the cheque was given as a security and his brother and himself were doing business and the cheque must have been given by his brother. It is further stated in the reply notice that the appellant owed more than Rs. 3,00,000/ - to the brother of the accused and therefore, there was no necessity for the accused to issue any cheque.

(3.) ON appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the appellant/complainant failed to prove that the respondent/accused had issued cheque towards the legally enforceable debit and admittedly, there was no business transaction between the appellant and the respondent. In the complaint, it was stated the cheque was issued by the respondent towards the discharge of the loan payable by him in due course of business transaction and the respondent also stated in the reply notice that he had no subsisting liability to the appellant and the appellant failed to state the nature of business transaction between him and the respondent and the respondent's brother and the circumstances under which the cheque was issued by the respondent and therefore, the appellant failed to prove legally enforceable debt payable by the respondent and dismissed the complaint.