The complainant appealed against his conviction for cheque dishonour. The Court upheld the lower court's finding that the complainant's evidence was disbelieved due to his failure to appear after being granted special permission to testify, thereby rejecting the appeal.
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 V.GIRI
THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930
CRL.A.No. 996 of 2002()
----------------------CC.295/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM
APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------------
V.A.NAZIR, S/O. MOHAMMED, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, M.K.GOPINATHAN, S/O. RAVUNNI NAIR, P.O.KARUVAMBRAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED & STATE:
------------------------------------------------------
1. T.V.BIJOY, S/O. BHASKARAN T.V., MELE ULLATHIL HOUSE, CHEVAYOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
V.GIRI, J.
CRL.A.No.996 of 2002 D
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The complainant, in C.C.No.295/01 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Malappuram, is the appellant herein.
CRL.A.No.996 of 2002
:: 2 ::
that the accused was not acquainted with the complainant and the accused had not issued the cheque to the complainant as alleged. The further suggestion was that there is no person answering to the description of the complainant at all.
CRL.A.No.996 of 2002
:: 3 ::
visa was cancelled in 1999 and he was then currently in station. If this be so, there does not seem to have been any justification whatsoever for the complainant for not appearing before the court in person and tendering evidence, in spite of the application being allowed for examination of the complainant as such.
For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI) JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. To Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction of the accused in a cheque dishonour case should be set aside due to the complainant's failure to appear after permission to examine him was granted.
Whether the lower court rightly believed the testimony of the Power of Attorney holder despite the accused's denial of the transaction.
V.A.NAZIR
T.V.BIJOY
STATE OF KERALA
V. GIRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
