JUDGMENT

[ CRL.A.3/2005, CRL.A.2172/2005, CRL.A.2221/2005 ]

Dated this the 12th day of November 2020 These three appeals are filed by the complainant in S.T.Nos.69/2001, 70/2001 and 71/2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II (Forest Offences), Manjeri. These three cases are initiated by the appellant in these appeals against the 1st respondent in these appeals alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court disposed these three cases by a common judgment. Therefore, I am disposing these three appeals by a common judgment. (Hereafter the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the lower court).

2. The specific case of the complainant is that the accused in discharge of the debt of Rs.2,25,000/-, paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- by cash and for the balance amount of Rs.2,15,000/- issued six cheques drawn on Canara Bank, Manjeri Branch in favour of the complainant and presented these cheques for collection through the South Indian Bank, Manjeri Branch. The above six cheques were dishonoured with a memo stating the reason “payment stopped by the drawer” and the fact of dishonour was intimated to the complainant by the collecting bank on 26.9.2000. Subsequently, the complainant sent separate notices demanding payment of the amount covered by the six cheques. Though notice was accepted by the accused, the accused did not pay the amount covered by the six cheques. No reply also given by the accused. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offfeces under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. Before the lower court all these three cases were tried jointly because the transactions were during the period of one year. An application to that effect was filed by the appellant/

complainant and the same was allowed.

4. To substantiate the case, the complainant himself was examined as PW1. Another witness was examined on the side of the complainant as PW2. The accused himself was examined as DW1. Exts.P1 to P22 are the exhibits marked on the side of the prosecution. Exts.D1 to D6 are the exhibits produced on the side of the defence.

5. After going through the evidence and the documents the trial court found that the accused is not guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the accused was acquitted in all the three cases. Aggrieved by the acquittal order, these three separate Criminal Appeals are filed, eventhough all the cases were disposed by a common judgment.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in discharge of the debt of Rs.2,25,000/- an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid in cash and for the balance six cheques were issued by the accused. There is a presumption in favour of the complainant. The lower court without any justification accepted the evidence adduced by the defence. The counsel submitted that this is a case in which the presumption under Sections 139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is in favour of the complainant. The counsel submitted that the signature in the cheques is admitted by the accused. The counsel submitted that the finding of the trial court that the cheque is signed with threat and coercion, is not proved. The counsel submitted that this is a clear case in which the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out.

8. The point for consideration in these appeals is whether the appellant committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act.

9. The trial court after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence came to the definite conclusion that the defence case is probabilised. The trial court accepted the case of the defence that the cheque is executed because of the threat and coercion from the side of the complainant. One of the circumstances relied by the lower court is that the cheques were issued from an account started