Dismissed

T.J.Thomas v. P.D.Antony and Another

Kerala HC2 Mar 2007Crl.L.P./135/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge rejected the complainant's special leave petition challenging the dismissal of a cheque dishonour case. The High Court upheld the trial court's finding that the complainant was not believed, the defence case regarding an exorbitantly filled cheque from an earlier year was probable, and the prosecution failed to prove a cheque was issued for the 2003 debt.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal against the judgment dismissing the complaint in cheque dishonour case is rejected.

T.J.Thomas Vs P.D.Antony and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2007 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1928

¶5

Crl.L.P..No. 135 of 2007()

¶6

-------------------------ST.391/2004 of J.M.F.C.-I,THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

¶9

T.J. THOMAS, S/O.THARAYIL OUSEPH, NELLUVAI P.O., ERUMAPETTY, THALAPPILLY TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)

¶11

RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED/STATE:

¶12

¶13

P.D. ANTONY, S/O. PORATHUR DEVASSY, THAYYUR P.O., THALAPPILLY TALUK.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY P.P.SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU FOR R2

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K. Thankappan, J.

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶19

Crl.L.P. No. 135 of 2007

¶20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2007

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This is a petition to special leave to appeal filed by the complainant in S.T.No.391/2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Thrissur. In the complaint it is stated that the 1^st respondent borrowed an amount of Rs.70,000/- from the petitioner and in discharge of the above debt, he issued Ext.P1 cheque to the petitioner and when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. To prove the case against the 1^st respondent, the complainant himself was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of the defence, Exts.D1 to D3 were marked. When the 1^st respondent was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the transaction. He stated that he borrowed an amount of Rs.12,000/- in the year 2000, issued a blank cheque and blank signed papers to secure the amount and the said cheque was misused by filling up with exorbitant amount. After considering the entire evidence the trial court found that “ PW1 is discredited and he is

¶23

not believed and his evidence cannot be acted upon to find that a duly

¶24

executed cheque was issued in 2003” . The case of the petitioner is that he lent money only in the year 2003. It is seen that in cross-examination PW1

¶25

CRL.LP 135/2007

¶26

¶27

admitted that the 1^st respondent borrowed Rs.12,000/- in 2000 and it was repaid by him at that time. The trial court found that the evidence makes probable the defence case that the 1^st respondent borrowed the amount in 2000 and the dispute arose thereon. Therefore, the trial court held that the prosecution has filed to prove that the 1^st respondent issued any cheque towards legally enforceable debt.

¶28

2. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court. Hence, leave to appeal is rejected.

¶29

K. Thankappan, Judge.

¶30

mn.

¶31

K.Thankappan,J.

¶32

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.l.P.No. 701 /2006

¶33

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶34

ORDER 20-12-2006

T.J.Thomas v. P.D.Antony and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.J.Thomas v. P.D.Antony and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreeniketan Centre for Social Devel.Chat Vs D.Raju

P.v.Sunil Duth Vs K.M.Ashraf

Mathew Tharakan Vs Mathai Thankachan

Pookot Vijayan Vs the Registrar, Co-Op. Societies and Othe

Pookot Vijayan Vs Registrar,Co.Op.Societies

Dr.Anantha Narayanan Vs State of Kerala