2026 (8) TMI 147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the State of Kerala as the 2nd respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Also heard the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the Magistrate Court. 3. According to the complainant, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- from the complainant and in discharge of the said liability, he had issued cheque for the said sum dated 20.10.2016 drawn on the Canara Bank, Seethathodu Branch. When the cheque was presented for collection, the same was dishonoured with endorsement 'insufficient funds' and the accused failed to repay the same even on acceptance of demand notice issued by the complainant. The learned M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pugned would not require any interference. 8. Adverting to the rival contentions, the points arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the learned Magistrate went wrong in finding that the accused/appellant did not commit offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act ? (ii) Whether the trial court verdict requires interference? (iii) Order to be passed. 9. First of all, it is held that once the complainant produces postal receipt showing issuance of notice in writing in the correct address of the accused, issuance of notice to be presumed under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act as held by the Apex Court in Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed [(2007) 6 SCC 555] [1999(3) KLT 441 : 2007 (2) KHC 932]. Thus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....W1 testified that Rs. 65,000/- out of Rs. 1,55,000/- was the amount obtained from the sale of timber and remaining amount by the sale of rubber sheets and other items and the profit from agricultural crops, for which no documents were available. This evidence was not challenged. Thus PW1 fully justified the source of money advanced to the accused. Here the defence case suggested during cross examination of PW1 was by denying the transaction and execution of Ext.P1 cheque, while admitting that there was financial dealing between the complainant and the accused during 2013 and the cheque entrusted for the said transaction towards security was used after putting name, amount, date etc. But the accused has no case that he had discharged the ....