A criminal appeal by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused in a cheque bounce case. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court correctly found the defence evidence regarding property assignment order to have demolished the complainant case based on the recitals in receipt.
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
TUESDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2007 / 19TH ASHADHA 1929
CRL.A.No. 47 of 2001(B)
---------------------------CC.281/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-V, TRIVANDRUM (SPL .COURT FOR MARK LIST CASES) DT.13.10.2000
APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT IN CC. 281/98 OF THE HON'BLE --------------- JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS COURT V, TRIVANDRUM.
SURESH BABU, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN, RESIDING AT T.C. NO.2/1652(3) NEAR COSMOPOLITAN HOSPITAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADV. SMT.P.DEEPTHI
2NS RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED IN CC. NO.281/98 OF THE J.F.C.M. ----------------------- COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
1. SUDHEESH KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, SUDHEESH ELECTRICAL & ENGINEERING WORKS NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.R. UDAYABHANU, J.
CRL.A.NO. 47 OF 2001
DATED THIS THE 10th July 2007
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No. 281/98, the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which stands dismissed and the accused
acquitted.
CRL.A.47/2001
-2-
accused, is that towards discharge of the borrowed of the amount, Ext.D3 assignment deed dated 4-12-1997 was executed by DW1 on 4-12-1997 assigning 9 cents of property and on the same day Ext.D4 receipt was executed by the complainant mentioning therein that towards the amount due, i.e. Rs.3,82,000/-, he has already received Rs. 1.5 lakhs and that on payment of the balance due, the property transferred in his name by the father of the accused shall be retransferred taking into account the then market price. Ext.D4 has been admitted by PW1 when he was cross examined. The case set up by the appellant is that Ext.D3 transaction is a separate and independent transaction and that the same has no connection with the borrowal evidenced by the impugned cheque. The trial court has rightly held that the above case cannot be upheld in view of the fact that Ext.D4 receipt mentions that the property will be retransferred on receipt of the balance amount. I find that the entire case set up by the complainant stands demolished in view of the above recitals in Ext.D4. Hence, I
CRL.A.47/2001
-3-
find that the findings arrived at by the court below is the only conclusion that can be arrived at in the light of the evidence adduced. No interference in the order of the court below is
called for. The appeal is dismissed.
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE
ks.
CRL.A.47/2001
-4-
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
CRL.A. 47 of 2001
JUDGMENT
10-7-2007
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal by the complainant should be allowed to interfere with the acquittal of the accused.
Whether the transaction of assignment deed and receipt shows settlement or relevance to the borrowed amount.
Whether the trial court finding that the defence case is demolished stands correct on evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Suresh Babu
State of Kerala
K.R. Udayabhanu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
