THIRU MYILVANGAM Vs. S P SUNDARAKESARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment in c. C. No. 106 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Hosur.

(2.) THE short facts of the case relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision are as follows:- A private complaint was preferred by the complainant under Section 200 of Cr. P. C. , for an offence under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act against the accused alleging that after receiving a loan of Rs. 9,51,322/- on 7. 6. 1997, the accused had drawn two cheques one for rs. 4,54,357/- and another for Rs. 4,96,785/- on 30. 1. 1999 in favour of the complainant in order to discharge the above said debt. When those cheques were presented for encashment in Syndicate Bank, Hosur Branch, by the complainant on 4. 2. 1999, the cheques were returned by the bank on the ground'payment stopped by the drawer'on 11. 2. 1999. When the above said fact of dishonour of the cheques was informed to the complainant, he had issued a notice as required under law to the accused informing about the return of those two cheques drawn by the accused on 30. 1. 1999. Even after the receipt of the said notice, the accused not cared to discharge the said debt.

(3.) P. W. 1 is the complainant. Before the trial Court, the complainant would depose what he has narrated in the complaint. Through the complainant-P. W. 1 the dishonouring of the cheques dated 30. 1. 1999 were exhibited as Ex. P. 1 and Ex. P. 2 respectively. Ex. P. 3 & Ex. P. 4 are the memos of the bank informing that the above said two cheques were returned on the ground'payment stopped by the drawer'. Ex. P. 5 is the copy of the suit notice dated 18. 2. 1999 issued by the complainant to the accused on 20. 2. 1999. P. W. 1 would say that the accused had received the original of Ex. P. 5 notice. According to P. W. 1, inspite of the receipt of notice the accused had not chosen to discharge the loan.