Dismissed

Sudevan v. State

Kerala HC13 Mar 2007Crl.L.P./99/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act was dismissed. The High Court held that the trial court rightly concluded that the complainant failed to prove the cheque was signed by the accused or that a financial transaction obliged such issuance.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal stands dismissed; the acquittal of the 2nd respondent is upheld.

Sudevan Vs State — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2007 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1928

¶5

Crl.L.P..No. 99 of 2007()

¶6

------------------------CC.443/2006 of J.M.F.C., KAYAMKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

¶9

SUDEVAN, S/O.VALSALAN, KULANJIYIL VEEDU, KEERIKKADU THEKKUM MURI, KEERIKKADU VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.REJI

¶11

SMT.C.A.AJITHA SALAM

¶12

RESPONDENTS: STATE AND ACCUSED:

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

LAKSHMI, W/O. NARAYANAN, VRINDAVANATHIL, CHEPPADU KIZHAKKUM MURI, CHEPPADU VILLAGE.

¶16

R1-BY P.P.SRI. THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKKAN

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K. THANKAPPAN, J.

¶19

-------------------------------------Crl.L.P.NO.99 OF 2007

¶20

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2007.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This is an application for special leave to appeal against the judgment in C.C.No.443/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kayamkulam. It is stated in the complaint that the 2^nd respondent had issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner/complainant for discharge of an amount of Rupees Two lakhs and when the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of fund in the account of the account holder. After receipt of intimation from the Bank and on complying the statutory provisions regarding notice, the petitioner/complainant filed the complaint. To prove the case against the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner/complainant himself was examined as PW1 and other two witnesses were also examined. Exts.P1 to P6 were also produced. On closing the evidence of the complainant, the 2^nd respondent was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The 2^nd respondent had denied her signature in

¶23

CRL.L.P.NO.99/2007 2

¶24

the cheque and even the ownership of the account from which the alleged cheque has been issued. The 2^nd respondent also disputed the transaction between the appellant and her which is the subject matter of the complaint. After having considered the entire evidence adduced by the complainant, the trial court found that the petitioner/complainant miserably failed to prove that the cheque is singed by the 2^nd respondent and the cheque belongs to the account of the 2^nd respondent. The trial court also found that the appellant failed to prove the financial transaction which obliged to issue the cheque by the 2^nd respondent to the complainant. In the above circumstances, the trial court acquitted the 2^nd respondent.

¶25

This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant and had perused the judgment of the trial court. After considering the entire matter afresh, this Court is of the view that the trial court had considered the evidence adduced before the court. It could be seen that the appellant had not proved any case against the 2^nd respondent with regard to the issuance of the cheque or to prove that the

¶26

CRL.L.P.NO.99/2007 3

¶27

cheque was signed by the 2^nd respondent. Further there is no evidence to show that any financial transaction existed between the appellant and the 2^nd respondent so as to oblige the 2^nd respondent to issue any cheque as alleged in the complainant. In the above circumstances, the judgment of the trial court requires no interference by this Court.

¶28

Accordingly, the leave to appeal stands dismissed,

¶29

K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.

¶30

¶31

CRL.L.P.NO.99/2007 4

Sudevan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudevan v. State

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

KUTTAPPAN,C.NO.4186,C.PRISON,KANNUR Vs State of Kerala

Rev.K.v.Mathai Vs P.v.Jose

State of Kerala,Rep.by P.P.,H.C.,Ekm. Vs Stanley Johns and Another

Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

M.v.Vasudevan Nair Vs Anto Karedan

SIVADASAN,C.NO.951,C.P.,TRIVANDRUM Vs State of Kerala