BIPIN MEHTA Vs. CHANDRA MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the complainant challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in C.C.No.4801 of 1993, dated 31.03.1997 acquitting the accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) IT is seen that the complainant has filed the complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent, who was the sole accused in this case. The case of the appellant/complainant is that he has given a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- on 14.03.1993 to the respondent/accused. The complainant has also obtained a pro-note from the accused. While the complainant demanded the repayment of the loan amount, the accused issued a cheque, dated 10.05.1993 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Kannanur, which is marked as Ex.P.1. Thereafter, the complainant deposited the said cheque under Ex.P.2 in a bank viz., Canara Bank. The complainant stated that on the deposit of the cheque, Ex.P.1, the same was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds as per the bank memo Ex.P.2 and also proprietary incorrect. Ex.P.3 is the bank memo sent from the complainant's Bank. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice under Ex.P.4 and the same was returned with an endorsement as not claimed and the returned cover was marked as Ex.P.5. The appellant/complainant also followed the mandatory requirements contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the cheque was presented within the period viz., within a period of six months and the complaint was also filed within the stipulated time under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) THE learned trial Magistrate on consideration of the entire evidence available on record has come to the conclusion that the appellant/complainant has not proved the case by adducing clear and cogent evidence and held that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not made out against the respondent/accused and acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved against the order of acquittal, the present appeal is filed by the complainant.