S. MUTHU Vs. S. GANESH BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the sake of convenience, the appellant and the respondent are referred to as complainant and accused.

(2.) It is the case of the complainant that on 05.03.2004, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- [Rupees Five lakhs only] for his urgent family and business expenses and in discharge of the liability, the accused issued a cheque dated 05.05.2004 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which when presented by the complainant, was returned for insufficiency of funds on 06.05.2004. The complainant issued a statutory notice dated 15.05.2004 calling upon the accused to repay the cheque amount, for which, the accused sent a reply notice dated 26.05.2004, wherein, the accused took a stand that he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 07.03.2002 from the complainant and for that borrowal, the accused had given a blank cheque dated 05.05.2004, which has been filled up by the complainant. The complainant initiated a prosecution in C.C. No.485 of 2004 before the learned Judicial Magistrate-V, Salem under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the accused.

(3.) On the appearance of the accused, he was questioned about the allegations and he denied the same. The complainant examined himself as PW-1 and marked four exhibits. The incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 which were denied by him. On behalf of the accused, Shanmugam/DW-1 and Sivakumar/DW-2 Branch Manager of the Central Bank of India were examined and a pocket note book was marked as Ex.D1. After analysing the evidence on record, the Trial Court, by judgment dated 19.12.2006, convicted the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo 9 months Rigorous Imprisonment and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Section 357 Cr.P.C., 1973 Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused filed Crl.A.No.5 of 2007 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-III), Salem. The First Appellate Court, by order dated 14.06.2007, acquitted the accused, challenging which, the complainant has filed the present appeal against the acquittal, with a condonation of delay. The delay was condoned and special leave was granted.