J U D G M E N T

The appellant questions the legality and correctness of the judgment passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pala, in S.T.No.224/2006, holding the first respondent/accused not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, ‘N.I.

Act’) and, thereby, acquitting him.

Brief facts:

2. The appellant had filed the above complaint before the court below against the first respondent alleging that he had in discharge of a liability, in connection with a timber business, issued Ext P1 cheque in favour of the complainant. The cheque on presentation to the bank for collection, got dishonoured as per Ext P2 memorandum due to ‘insufficient funds’ in the first respondent’s bank account. Even though the appellant had issued Ext P5 statutory lawyer notice to the first respondent, he failed to pay the demanded amount. Hence, the accused committed the above offence.

Trial

3. The first respondent appeared and pleaded not guilty to the substance of accusation made against him. In the trial, the appellant was examined as PW1 and Exts P1 to P7 were marked in evidence. The first respondent was questioned under Section 313