NACHIMUTHU COMPLAINANT Vs. RAJARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.A.No.1031 of 2001 has been directed against the Judgment in C.C.No.26 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore. C.A.No.1032 of 2001 has been directed against the Judgment in C.C.No.32 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore. The complainant in both cases are the appellants herein.

(2.) ACCORDING to the complainant in C.C.No.26 of 2000/appellant in C.A.No.1031 of 2001, the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.3 lakhs under a promissory note dated 20.10.1998 and in order to discharge the said debt under the promissory note the accused had drawn a cheque for Rs.3,50,000/- on 20.10.1999 (Ex.P.1). When the impugned cheque was presented before the Indian Oversees Bank for collection the said cheque was returned with an endorsement 'Account Closed'. Ex.P.2 is the return memo dated 14.11.1989. Ex.P.3 is the debit advice dated 5.9.1999. Within ten days from the date of dishonour of the cheque, the complainant had issued notice under the original of Ex.P.4, which was received by the accused under Ex.P.5. Ex.P.6 is the reply notice. Since Ex.P.1 - impugned cheque drawn by the accused dated 20.10.1999 was dishonoured by the Bank on presentation, the complainant has preferred the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) NOW the points for determination in these appeals are as follows:- 1)Whether the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been attracted against the accused? 2)Whether the judgments in C.C.No.26 & 32 of 2000 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal in both the appeals?