JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of May, 2023 The petitioner is the complainant in S.T.No.2862 of

2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Pathanamthitta. In the complaint, the petitioner alleged that the second respondent borrowed an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- and issued a cheque towards discharge of liability. The cheque, on presentation, was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The second respondent, by failing to pay the cheque amount despite issuance of demand notice, is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

2. Although legal notice was sent to the second respondent, neither was a reply sent nor the amount paid. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the power of attorney holder of the complainant was examined as PW1. When suggestion was made to PW1 during cross examination as to whether the cheque was issued as a guarantee for another financial transaction, his answer was that he wanted to verify the documents. The court below also found that PW1 had no case that he had personal knowledge about the transaction or that he is in charge of the complainant chit fund.

3. As the power of attorney holder had no personal