AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Balakrishnan, J.—The complainant in a case filed under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act challenges the verdict of acquittal given by the learned Magistrate. The case of the complainant is that he had lent Rs. 4,85,000/- and to discharge that debt the accused issued Ext.P1 series two cheques, one for Rs. 2,65,000/- dated 21.10.2000 and the other cheque for Rs. 2,20,000/- dated 27.11.2000. When those cheques were presented for encashment, both cheques were dishonored on the ground of insufficiency of fund. On receipt of the dishonour memo statutory notice was sent. It was acknowledged by the accused. The accused/respondent sent a reply, Ext.P7 refuting the allegations contained in the statutory notice. Since the amount was not paid, the complaint was filed.
The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. The brother of the accused was examined as DW1 and Ext.D1 G.V.R was also marked.
Learned Magistrate did not accept the case of the complainant that he lent Rs. 4,85,000/- as alleged by him. The case advanced by the accused was that he was a driver of the lorry owned by the appellant/complainant and that his signed blank cheque leaf which was in the dash box was taken away by the complainant and filed a false complaint against him, because the accused happened to give a statement against the complainant in a case relating to forgery of document. The accused contended that he and his brother who were drivers were terminated from service by the complainant and making use of the signed blank cheque leaf the case was foisted against him. That case was accepted by the learned Magistrate and the accused was acquitted.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the evidence given by PW1 should not have been disbelieved by the trial court. The fact that Ext.P1 and P1 (a) contained the signature of the accused should have been accepted by the court below to hold that those two cheques were executed and handed over by the accused to the complainant. It is further argued that the case of the accused that he had simply kept the signed blank cheque leaf in the dash box of the lorry is un-digestible because it is not the common course of conduct to keep signed blank cheque leaf in the dash box of the lorry. It is argued that the accused did not offer any explanation why he had kept such blank cheque leaf in the dash board of the lorry.
Learned counsel for the accused/respondent would submit that a perusal of the complaint and the evidence given by PW1 itself would make it clear that there is no truth in the assertion made by the complainant. Exts.P1 and P1(a) were written up by some person other than the accused. It is so clear on a perusal of those cheques itself. But still the complainant chose to depose before court that those two cheques were written up by the accused himself and those two cheques were signed by the accused in his presence. What more, the complainant would say that it was using the very same pen those two cheques were filled up and signed. Ext.P1(a) speaks otherwise. A perusal of those cheques would leave no doubt that those two cheques were filled up by a person well literate in English and that the signatures were put by the accused at a different point of time. Therefore, that would improbabilise the case of the complainant. It was admitted by PW1 that a suit was filed by him against the father of the accused for realisation of some amount he had lent to him. Copy of the plaint was not produced. What was the amount complainant had lent to the father of the accused is not known. Whatever that be, there must be evidence to prove the actual transaction namely the lending of such huge amount of Rs. 4,85,000/-, that too in the year 2000. Though the complainant says that lending of money was witnessed by his wife and children, nobody was examined. If such a huge amount had been lent certainly some other document would have been obtained. The evidence given by PW1 is inconsistent with regard to the filling up of the two cheques. That also would run counter to the case set up by the complainant.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the accused himself did not mount the witness box to state his case, though in the statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., it was stated that the accused was a witness to a sale deed which actually was a false document and since he happened to give a statement to the police against the complainant, he (the complainant) with a view to wreck vengeance took custody of the driving licence and signed blank cheque leaves from the accused and foisted the case. Learned counsel for the accused submits that such a case was put to PW1 in the witness box and that was the specific case advanced by him in Ext.P2, the reply notice also. The brother of the accused, who was also driver of the lorry owned by the complainant, was examined as DW1 and he also spoke in tune with the case advanced by the accused.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that the evidence given by PW1 that the accused and his brother were not his drivers was proved to be false by producing Ext.D1, the G.V.R pertaining to the lorry owned by the accused, of which the respondent and DW1 were the drivers. The evidence and circumstances would show that the accused was a driver who used to drive the lorry owned by PW1. It is also pertinent to note that no document whatsoever was produced by the complainant to show that the complainant was in fact having that much money to be lent to the accused. Being the owner of a lorry certainly he must have been maintaining an account in a bank. No such bank account was also produced to prove that it was possible for the complainant to advance that much money to the accused. When exactly the amount was advanced by him to the accused was also not specifically stated by him in evidence. The learned Magistrate who had the opportunity to watch the demeanor of the witnesses has after thorough scrutiny chosen not to place reliance on the evidence given by PW1. On a thorough scrutiny of the entire evidence and circumstances, I find no reason to hold otherwise. As such, the verdict of acquittal is only to be confirmed.
In the result, this Crl. A. is dismissed confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.