IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 CRL.A.No. 1382 of 2003() ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.226/2003 Dated 25/07/2003 ST.56/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-V, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT :- ------------------------------------------------------------------ G. SURENDRAN, T.C.10/855, UTHRADAM, EDAKULAM, MANNAMOOLAM PEROORKADA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED :- --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.VALSALA, D/O.KAMALAMMA, CLASS-IV, PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.A.No.1382 of 2003 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September 2011 J U D G M E N T The complainant in a case which was filed by him under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act against the first respondent is the appellant. 2. The case of the complainant is that the accused had borrowed from the complainant Rs.75,000/- and to discharge that debt Ext.P1 cheque was issued which on presentment was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of fund. On receipt of the intimation, statutory notice was sent. Though he acknowledged the notice, the amount was not paid. Hence the complaint was filed. 3. The complainant got himself examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the defence as DWs.1 and 2. 4. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused Crl.A.No.1382 of 2003 -: 2 :- solely on the ground that Ext.P3 notice is not as enjoined under the proviso (b) to Sec.138 of N.I.Act and hence without considering the evidence on other aspects the accused was acquitted. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant/appellant submits that though in the last portion of Ext.P3 it was stated that the accused has to compensate the cheque on a reading of the entire notice it can be seen that the cheque in question was issued to discharge the debt of Rs.75,000/- and it was that cheque which was dishonoured and so what was meant by the complainant was that the accused was to pay the amount covered in the cheque; namely Rs.75,000/-. The demand portion seen in Ext.P3 cannot be thus culled out to mean that what was demanded was not the cheque amount but something else. A reasonable interpretation is required to be had in such circumstances to meet the ends of justice. As such I find that Ext.P3 notice satisfies the requirements under the proviso (b) to Sec.138 of the Crl.A.No.1382 of 2003 -: 3 :- N.I.Act. The finding to the contrary entered by the learned Magistrate is set aside. 6. Since the evidence regarding liability etc. was not considered by the learned Magistrate, the case has to be remanded to the trial court. In the result, this Crl.A. is allowed in part. The judgment of acquittal is set aside. The case is remanded to J.F.C.M.-V, Thiruvananthapuram for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The parties will appear before that court on 3.10.2011. The learned Magistrate will dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from that date. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt