The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal leave petition seeking leave to appeal against an order acquitting the accused in a cheque bounce case, holding that the lower court's findings on material alteration required no interference.
Leave to appeal disallowed; Crl. Leave Petition 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.THANKAPPAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2007 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1928
Crl.L.P..No. 629 of 2006()
-------------------------CC.235/1997 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II, KANJIRAPPALLY
PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, NJALIMAKKAL, CHEKKETHU KAVALA, CHIRAKKADAVU REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, INDIRA DEVI.P.R.
BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED AND STATE
BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP-R1 SRI.MANU.S.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S.BREEZE -R2
THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.THANKAPPAN, J.
---------------------------------------CRL. L.P. NO. 629 OF 2006
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2007
O R D E R
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment in C.C. No.235 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court II, Kanjirappally.
CRL.L.P.NO.629/2006
2
complaint, the first respondent stated that he had issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner - complainant for an amount of Rs.10,000/- which he had borrowed from the petitioner and the amount has already been paid. He further stated that he had written the amount in the cheque only in figures and that the first respondent misused the cheque by altering the amount in figures to Rs.1,00,000/- and also by writing the amount in words. To prove his case, the first respondent relied on Ext.D1 report of the handwriting expert which showed that there was difference in the writings in Ext.P1 cheque. Hence, it is clear that the amount in the cheque in question was altered by the complainant.
CRL.L.P.NO.629/2006
3
evidence adduced in the said suit was not pressed into service in this case.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the
findings entered by the court below require no interference.
The Crl. Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)
sp/
CRL.L.P.NO.629/2006 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the findings of the court below that the complainant could not prove the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act require interference.
Whether the evidence adduced in a related civil suit should be pressed into service in this criminal matter.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR
STATE OF KERALA
K.THANKAPPAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
