2020 (11) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the trial court). 2. The prosecution case is that a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was due to the complainant from the accused. To repay the said amount, the accused issued a cheque dated 5.9.1997 drawn on Canara Bank, Aluva. When the cheque was presented for encahsment, the same was dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient'. Statutory notice was issued. Even then there was no response. Hence the complaint was filed. 3. To substantiate the case, the complainant himself was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P6 are the documents marked from the side of the complainant. The accused was also examined as DW1. Three exhibits were mark....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mentary evidence came to the definite conclusion that the accused is not guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The lower court after perusing the oral and documentary evidence came to such conclusions. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: "11. It is also brought out in evidence that O.S .262/99 before Munsiff's Court, Aluva filed against the father of the accused was decreed in favour of the plantiff in that case who is the brother of the complainant. So it is come out that complainant's brother filed a suit against the accused's father, complainant's another brother sent a notice demanding Rs. 35,000/- from the accused and this complaint is filed against the acçused by the c....