Dismissed

Harikumar.K.N. v. Mathew Kora

Kerala HC25 May 2011Crl.L.P./308/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed petitions seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal order under Section 138 NI Act. It upheld the trial court's finding that the complainant failed to prove the source of a large loan and that blank cash cheques were not drawn in favor of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was denied and petitions were dismissed.

Harikumar.K.N. Vs Mathew Kora — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

Crl.L.P..No. 308 of 2011()

¶6

-------------------------CC.9/2005 of J.M.F.C. - II, ETTUMANUR

¶7

PETITIONER (S): COMPLAINANT

¶8

¶9

HARIKUMAR K.N., KURUPPANKUNNEL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE SMT.K.V.LEKSHMY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED

¶12

¶13

MATHEW KORA, BRANCH MANAGER, KADUTHURUTHY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,

¶14

NJEEZHOOR BRANCH, NJEEZHOOR P.O.

¶15

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

¶16

ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2011, ALONG WITH CRL.L.P.309/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sou.

¶19

K. HEMA, J

¶20

---------------------CRLP.No. 308 OF 2011 &

¶21

CRLP.No. 309 OF 2011 ----------------------------------Dated 25^th May, 2011

¶22

COMMON ORDER

¶23

These petitions are filed to grant leave for filing appeal.

¶24

Petitioner filed two complaints against

¶25

respondent/accused alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Both were jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment. These petitions are filed for granting of leave to file appeal against order of acquittal and both of them are disposed of by this common order.

¶26

As per the allegations in the complaint accused, for the discharge of a debt towards complainant issued two cheques for Rs.4,90,000/- and 9,10,000/- respectively and on presentation of the cheques, those were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. A lawyer notice was issued demanding payment of money but no payment was made, hence the complaint.

¶27

Heard petitioner's counsel. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that accused has not disputed the financial capacity of the petitioner. But trial court held that there is no evidence to show that petitioner has source of income. On going

¶28

Crl.L.P. No.308/11& 309/11 2

¶29

through the impugned order, I find that court considered probability of complainant for advancing huge mount of Rs.14,00,000/- to the accused. Various aspects were considered by trial court and it was found that such a huge amount would not be advanced to a person without even obtaining any document. No witness was examined by complainant to show that Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 cheques were drawn by accused in favour of him. Trial court also came to a conclusion that complainant failed to prove the source to advance 14,00,000/- as alleged by accused.

¶30

On going through the impugned oder I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings. The findings entered are supported by sound and valid reasons. Trial court observed at page 9 of the impugned order as follows:

¶31

“The complainant who claimed to have conducted Abkari business failed to produce any document to prove the same. There is no explanation from the complainant as to why he advanced such a huge amount of Rs.14,00,000/- to the accused without obtaining any document evidencing payment of amount. Admittedly Ext.P1 and P2 are cash cheques and the case of the accused is that Gopalakrishnan entrusted the blank cheque leaves given by he accused to the complainant and they filed the complaints by filling the cheque. As the name of the payee is not written in Ext.P1 and P2 cheques, the burden is on he complainant to prove that

¶32

Crl.L.P. No.308/11& 309/11

¶33

¶34

Ext.P1 and P2 cash cheques were in fact drawn by he accused in favour of the complainant in discharge of an enforceable debt as alleged. It cannot be believed that such a huge amount of Rs.14 lakhs will be advanced to a person without obtaining any documents. Thus it is found that if the complainant had in fact given 14 lakhs to the accused as alleged, he would have at least obtained the cheques containing the name of the payee in the cheques. No witness was examined by the complainant to show that Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 cheques were drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant.”

¶35

The above findings are supported by evidence and it cannot

¶36

be said those are perverse or infirm due to any reason. There is

¶37

no ground to grant leave.

¶38

These petitions are dismissed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

Sou.

¶41

K. HEMA, JUDGE. // True copy //

Harikumar.K.N. v. Mathew Kora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harikumar.K.N. v. Mathew Kora

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

Thankachan Vs State of Kerala

K.Narayanan Nair Vs Station House Officer

Merchants Association Vs v.C.Dileep

Muraleedhara Kumar @ Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala

P.T.Saji Vs Jiyo Thomas

M/S.Shalom Kuries Pvt.Ltd. Vs Muraleedharan and Another