In this criminal appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellant challenged the lower court's finding that there was no proof of cheque execution. The court held the findings were sound and reasonable, dismissing the appeal.
The criminal appeal was dismissed, upholding the order of acquittal.
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
TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933
CRL.A.No. 627 of 2011()
----------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.278/2011 Dated 30/03/2011 ST.33/2010 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRAST CLASS - II, PARAVUR
APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT
MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, CHERAI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.N.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KASAMKKOTTAM HOUSE, CHERAI.
BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI
RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S.SIVAKUMAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.HEMA, J.
----------------------------------------------- Crl. Appeal No.627 of 2011
----------------------------------------------- Dated this 24th May, 2011.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against an order of acquittal.
against respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the N.I. Act' for short). The complaint was filed on the allegation that the complainant is a registered society represented by its secretary and the accused owed an amount of Rs.31210/- to the complainant society. Towards discharge of the said liability, accused issued a cheque for the said amount drawn on an account maintained by him. The cheque on presentation was dishonoured for the reason 'insufficient fund'. A lawyer notice was sent demanding payment. No payment was made and hence the complaint was filed.
misused the cheque which was a blank signed cheque as a security.
adduced, held as follows:
The evidence adduced by PW1 as well as PW2 shows that there is no whisper with regard to the execution of Ext.P1 cheque. In the proof affidavit of PW1 also he stated that accused has issued a cheque dated 14.11.2008 for an amount of Rs.31,210/- towards the discharge of his liability to the complainant. PW1 has no case that accused has put his signature in Ext.P1 in his presence issued the same towards the liability of accused alleged by the complainant. According to PW2 also he had seen the handing over of cheque by the accused. He contended that there are transaction between the complainant and accused, but he has not deposed before the court that he had seen the execution of Ext.P1. On the other hand, he deposed that he had seen the handing over of cheque by he accused. Mere handing over of cheque is not amounts to execution. The evidence adduced by PW1 shows hat he miserably failed to prove the execution of Ext.P1 cheque by the accused in discharge of his liability.”
This is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
Krs.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's finding of acquittal due to lack of evidence regarding the execution of the cheque.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, CHERAI
V.C.DILEEP
STATE OF KERALA
KHEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
