- (1.)The appellant is the complainant in C.C. 466 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ramankary. Before the trial court, he prosecuted the first respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) with an allegation that the first respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 85,000/- from the appellant and in discharge of the liability, a cheque which was marked as Ext. P2 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Kottayam Branch was issued and that when presented for collection through the State Bank of Travancore, Pazhaveedu branch, it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds and despite the acknowledgement of the notice demanding discharge, the liability was not discharged. The first respondent in response to the process entered appearance and pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, the power of attorney holder of appellant was examined as PW 1. Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. During the cross examination, certain bills were marked as Ext. D1 series. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the first respondent took a defence of total denial. No further defence evidence was let in.
(2.)The learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a conclusion that the cheque was issued as a security. Therefore, in the light of the decision reported in Sreenivasan v. State of Kerala, 2000 1 RCR(Cri) 323, the first respondent was acquitted. Assailing the above judgment of acquittal, this appeal is preferred.
(3.)I have heard Advocate Sri. John Britto, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the judgment impugned and the evidence on record.