NAZAR P. S/O.KOYA Vs. KABIRDAS P.P S/O. SANTHAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks special leave of this Court under section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 to institute criminal appeal so as to challenge the judgment dated 30.3.2017 rendered by the trial court (Court of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (N.I.Act Cases), Kozhikode, whereby the accused therein (R-1 herein) has been acquitted of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque amount in this case is for Rs. 15 lakhs.

(2.) Heard Sri. P.R. Sreejith, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (complainant) and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State. In the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to R-1(accused) will stand dispensed with.

(3.) The basic defence set up by the accused is that he had issued blank signed cheques to the complainant as security in respect of a previous transaction, which took place in 2011 and that though he had repaid the said amount, the complainant had not returned the cheque, due to some subsequent animosity and that he has misused the same by presenting one of the blank signed cheques for instituting the present complaint. The borrowable of transaction in question pertains to this case is said to have taken place in June 2015 and Ext.P-1 cheque dated 6.11.2015 was issued by the complainant for an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs. As the defence of the accused is that he had handed over blank signed cheques, there is no much dispute by him that the signature in the cheque belongs to him and the cheque has been issued from the account maintained by him. Therefore, going by the well established principles in that regard by various rulings of the Apex Court and High Courts as in Vasanthakumari v. Vijayakumar, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 378 , the complainant claims the benefit of statutory presumption in this case. However, the trial court finds in the impugned judgment that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of statutory presumption or that the accused has effectively rebutted the said statutory presumption in view of the following aspects: