The High Court of Kerala dismissed the complainant's criminal appeal against an acquittal in a cheque dishonour case, upholding the lower court's finding that the prosecution case was improbable due to the complainant's lack of sufficient means to lend the alleged large sum.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; acquittal of the accused affirmed.
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 MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933
CRL.A.No. 626 of 2011()
------------------------------ST.1625/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NEDUMKANDOM
APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT
P.T.SAJI, S/O.THOMAS, PARAYIL VEEDU, RAJAKKANDOM KARA, VANDANMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV. DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN
RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A SALIM
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sou.
K. HEMA, J
Crl.Appeal.No.626 OF 2011 ----------------------------------Dated 25th May, 2011
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed against an order of acquittal.
Crl.A. No.626/11
2
find that trial court has on sound and valid reasons entered the finding that case set up by complainant is not probable. In paragraph 5, the following observations and findings are entered.
“5. The accused denied of having borrowed the sum of Rs.2,05,000/- from the complainant and the same was repaid in150 days. The accused has maintained a consistent case. The suggestions put to the complainant during the cross examination as well as the statements made by the accused at the time of his examination under section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C are in conformity with each other. The evidence of complainant was seriously challenged by the accused. The accused has challenged the financial capacity of the complainant to lent the sum of Rs. 2,05,000/-. It has come out in evidence that the monthly income of th complainant is only Rs.15,000/-. It is the evidence of complainant that the money which was kept by him for constructing his house was given to the accused. In this juncture the evidence let in by the complainant casts some doubt with regard to the transaction. It is quite improbable, in the normal course of conduct of an ordinary prudent man to lend a sum of Rs.2,05,000/-, which was kept for the construction of his house, to someone without any guaranty. Through the cross examination of PW1 the accused has brought out the probability of the transaction as narrated by the complainant, which resulted in the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque by the accused.
Crl.A. No.626/11
3
circumstances of the case.”
perverse and hence there is no ground to admit this appeal.
This petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Sou.
//True copy //
P.A to Judge.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the lower court's finding that the complainant's case is improbable due to lack of source of income.
Whether the accused's denial of borrowing and consistent testimony warrant setting aside the acquittal.
Whether the trial court's observations regarding the probability of lending a large sum without guarantee are perverse.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.T.Saji
State of Kerala
Jijo Thomas
K. HEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
