The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the complainant against an order in which the accused were acquitted of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court upheld the lower court's finding that the defence established a probable case.
The criminal appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2007 / 3RD SRAVANA 1929
CRL.A.No. 454 of 1999(A)
-----------------------------ST.3189/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .
APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT
--------------
RAVI, S/O. UNNI,, AGED 52 YEARS, BUSINESS, THAIVALATH, KUZHOOR DESOM, KAKULISSERY VILLAGE,. MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRICHUR, DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
RESPONDENT: ACCUSED
----------------
1. DEVASSY, S/O.PARAPPUKKARAN PORINCHU, AGED 48 YEARS, CHERPU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT P.O., CHERPU (DIED)
2. JOSE PRAKASH, S/O. PALLISSERY RAPPAI, P.O. CHERPU, CHERPU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR (DISTRICT)
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) SRI.RATHISH VIJAYENDRAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
Crl. Appeal No.454 of 1999
--------------------------------------------Dated this the 25th day of July, 2007
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the complainant in S.T.No.3189/96 with respect to the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which stands dismissed and the accused acquitted.
Crl.A.NO.454/1999
Page numbers
Rs.20,000/- was borrowed and out of which Rs.19,000/- was repaid and that there was a dispute with respect to the interest due and hence the blank cheque issued at the time of the borrowal has been misused by incorporating the amount of Rs.60,000/-. According to the defence at the time of the transaction a pro-note was executed, the original of which according to the accused is with the complainant. According to the defence, it is the case that in the agreement the amount is mentioned as Rs.40,000/-. They have also produced the copy of the agreement, i.e., Ext. D1, Ext. D2 photo copy of the blank cheque, Ext. D3 reply notice sent raising the above contentions which was received by the complainant who is the brother of the accused after filing of the complaint and Ext. D4 acknowledgment card. The court below has relied on certain circumstances that
has brought out in the evidence in order to non suit the complaint. The relevant fact is that the cheque was presented just on the brink of the expiry of the validity of the date of the cheque. The cheque dated 25.8.1995 was presented on 15.2.1996. There is no explanation for not presenting the cheque at about six months after the date of the cheque. The above
Crl.A.NO.454/1999 Page numbers
circumstance is fortified by the fact that Ext. D1 photo copy of the agreement which is dated 24.3.1995 is the pro-note that support the defence case and Ext. D1 contains the cheque number as well. The photocopy of the blank cheque is Ext. D2. The lower court has also noted that the writings of the details in the cheque is different from signature i.e., with respect to the ink used. It was on the basis of the cumulative effect of the entire circumstances that court found that the defence has established a probable case and that the complainant has failed to establish the execution of the cheque.
The appeal is dismissed.
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE
csl
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's finding of probable case in acquittal arising out of the material presented.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RAVI
DEVASSY
JOSE PRAKASH
K.R.UDAYABHANU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
