2020 (12) TMI 510

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lp this Court to dispose of this appeal. 2. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 7.7.2005 in C.C.No.1755/2000 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. The complainant is the appellant in this case. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is engaged in the business of refrigeration gas and other air conditioning items. It is alleged that the accused purchased deep freezer on credit basis and towards the discharge of the liability the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 21,875/-. When the cheque was presented, it was dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient' and the statutory notice was issued, there was no payment. Hence the complaint was filed. 3. To substantiate the case, one witness....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is one Kochumol Renjith. The accused described in the complaint is Kunjumol Renjith and not Kochumol Renjith. Ext.P11 is the bank account extract in respect of the account No.751032 from which Ext.P2 cheque is drawn. The signature in Ext.P2 cheque indicate the signatory of the same as Kochumol and not Kunjumol. Ext.P11 bank extract also shows the account holder's name as Kochumol and not Kunjumol. If the account holder is Kochumol the complaint for offence u/s. 138 of the N.I Act against Kunjumol Renjith cannot be sustained since the complaint can only be filed against the drawer of the cheque and that can only be Kochumol Renjit. The drawer of the cheque u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be the account holder and not any....