An accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt; insufficient evidence of intent to deceive results in acquittal.

This appeal was filed under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .

2. The 1st respondent was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class-I, Manjeri, after trial on a charge for the offences punishable under Sections 468 , 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . The appellant who was the defacto complainant in C.C. No.747/2006 assails the said judgment.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The prosecution was initiated with the following allegations:

On 01.06.2006 at 10.30 a.m. the 1st respondent reached the house of the appellant and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,70,000/-. The 1st respondent had issued Ext.P1 cheque affixing his signature with the date 16.08.2006 for the discharge of that debt. The 1st respondent affixed a different signature than his genuine one with the dishonest intention of cheating the appellant. The appellant presented that cheque for encashment, but it was dishonoured for the difference in signature and then only the appellant realised that the cheque was a forged document.

5. PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were proved to substantiate the charge.

6. The case set forth by the 1st respondent can be gathered from the cross examination of the witnesses and the answers he has given during 313 examination. He has borrowed Rs.30,000/- from the appellant in 2005, and as security for that debt, he issued three blank cheques and a stamp paper worth Rs.50; all with his signatures. It was alleged that one of the said cheqes was misused to initiate this prosecution.

7. The trial court did not accept the prosecution’s case. It was held that the evidence tendered by the prosecution was insufficient to prove the allegation that the 1st respondent fraudulently induced the appellant to pay Rs.2,70,000/- to him and that Ext.P1 cheque was issued with a false signature.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the said findings by contending that when Ext.P1 cheque was returned by the bank with the endorsement that the signature of the drawer differed from his signature furnished before the bank, the dishonest intention on the part of the 1st respondent to deceive the appellant was quite clear. Evidence of PW2, the appellant, and PW3 a witness to the transaction was disbelieved without sufficient reason. It is submitted that the evidence of DW1 and Ext.D1 was given undue emphasize by the trial court. When the medical records showed that PW2 was discharged from the hospital in the morning itself, the version of PW3 that the money was paid to the 1st respondent by PW2 at his house in the morning cannot be a discrepancy.

Therefore, the reason assigned by the trial court to discharge the evidence regarding the money transaction is incorrect and unsustainable in law.

9. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent approached the issue on a different tangent. It is submitted that when the 1st respondent categorically admitted before the court that his signature in Ext.P1 was his own and it was established that the variation in the signature was non account of passage of time, no offence of forgery could be attracted. Since, the allegation of the creation of a false document by way of putting a different signature by the 1st respondent in Ext.P1 is falsified from the evidence, the allegation of cheating does not sustain. It is further submitted that the natural variation in the signature in Ext.P1 is sufficiently substantiated through the evidence of DW2, the Bank Manager, and the specimen signature card, Ext.D2, but the prosecution did not venture to get a report from the handwriting expert in order to substantiate forging of his signature in Ext.P1.

10. The specific charge levelled against the 1st respondent is that at 10.30 a.m. on 01.06.2006 he reached the house of PW2 and borrowed the money. The fact that PW2 was in the hospital undergoing treatment on that day is not dispute