Dismissed

Sunil Nath v. K.G.Haridas

Kerala HC1 Sept 2008CRL.A/655/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed this criminal appeal. The appellant, a complainant in the proceedings below, sought interference with an acquittal. The magistrate had acquitted the accused on the ground that the complaint was premature, filed before the fifteen-day period for payment expired. The High Court agreed with the court below and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed affirming the acquittal of the accused for premature filing of the complaint.

Sunil Nath Vs K.G.Haridas — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930

¶5

CRL.A.No. 655 of 2005()

¶6

----------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.105/2005 Dated 09/03/2005 CC.118/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM

¶7

APPELLANT/ COMPLAINANT:

¶8

¶9

SUNIL NATH, PROPRIETOR,CHANCHAL CREATIVE COMMUNICATIONS,KOCHI.

BY ADV. SMT.A.R.USHA

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED:

K.G.HARIDAS, PARTNER M & H MEDIA, KOCHIERI KATTILE, SAINDHAVAM, U.C. COLLEGE, ALUVA.

¶14

MURALI KRISHNA, PARTNER M & H MEDIA,1/280, U.C.COLLEGE P.O.,ALUVA.

¶15

M/S. M & H MEDIA,

¶16

1/280, U.C. COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA.

¶17

STATE OF KERALA,

¶18

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

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW FOR R1 TO 3

¶20

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

V.GIRI, J.

¶23

==============

¶24

Criminal Appeal No. 655 of 2005 ====================

¶25

Dated this the 1^st day of September, 2008.

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The complainant in C.C.No.118/2003 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam is the appellant herein. The complaint was filed alleging that the accused had issued Ext.P19 cheque for an amount of Rs.12,000/- on 15.11.1998 which was dishonoured on 3.2.1999 as evidenced by Ext.P29 dishonour memo. Dishonour was communicated to the complainant on 6.2.1999. Cheque amount was demanded as Ext.P30 telegram dated 12.2.1999. The accused had fifteen days time to pay the amount. But the complaint, pursuant to Ext.P19 cheque, seems to have been filed on 26.2.1999. Essentially, on this basis, the accused has been acquitted on the ground that the complaint was a premature one.

¶28

It may be noted that the stand taken by the accused

¶29

was one of the denial of any transaction as alleged by the complainant. According to the accused, the cheque issued was a blank one and that was issued as a security and not for

¶30

Criminal Appeal No. 655 of 2005 2

¶31

discharging any liability. Thus, the court below acquitted the accused under Section 255(i) Cr.P.C., finding that the complaint was premature. Hence the appeal.

¶32

There is no representation on behalf of the complainant or on behalf of the accused. I have perused the order of the court below. I am in agreement with the court below that the complaint should have been filed on or after 27.2.1999, with giving the accused, full fifteen days to pay the amount. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was nothing to show that an offence was committed in terms of 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶33

In the result, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶34

V.GIRI, JUDGE

¶35

bkn/-

Sunil Nath v. K.G.Haridas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Nath v. K.G.Haridas

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

M/S.Semic Engineers and Contractors Vs Suhara Hyder

V. Asokan Vs P. Jayarajan

Nazirudeen Vs a. Shamsudeen

P.N.Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs M/S.Anupam Textiles

Jose Stephen Vs Nazeema Hameed

Vasumathi Vs Mani C.Kappan