Appeal against an order of acquittal in a cheque bounce case. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court correctly concluded the prosecution failed to prove the existence of legal consideration due to non-production of account details.
Appeal dismissed; acquittal ordered by the trial court is upheld.
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 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933
CRL.A.No. 925 of 2011()
----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN CC.326/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR
APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER
SNEHALATHA,
RESIDING AT GARDENVILLA, MANPALLIKUNNOM CHERRY, CHATHANNOOR P.O.,KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH
RESPONDENT(S):
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ME. K.S SIVAKUMAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sou.
K. HEMA, J
Crl.Appeal.No.925 OF 2011 ----------------------------------Dated 15th June, 2011
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed against an order of acquittal.
Crl.A. No.925/11 2
amount in the account of complainant during the period in which transaction took place. Complainant has no explanation for nonavailability of money in her account at the relevant time.
Crl.A. No.925/11
3
trial court entered the following finding in paragraph 9 of the impugned order:
“9. Accused brought in evidence the ledger folio of the account of the complainant of the period from 1.1.00 to 5.12.05, marked as Ext.D1, which covers the relevant period in which the transaction involved in this case took place. On a perusal of D1 it can be seen that there was no amount in the account of the complainant during the period in which the transaction in this case is allegedly took place. This no doubt shatters her claim of paying of consideration to the accused by way of cheque and that she withdrew the amount on that day itself. Complainant has no explanation as to the non-availability of amount in her account on that relevant time in her account. This makes the very claim of passing of consideration to the accused in return of the P6 cheque to stand disproved, making her entire case to collapse.”
Crl.A. No.925/11
4
the discharge of the money which accused allegedly owe to complainant. This was not done. There is no reason to admit this appeal.
This appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Sou.
// True copy //
P.A. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court correctly held the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act proved given the lack of funds in the complainant's account.
Whether the acquittal of the accused requires interference on appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SNEHALATHA
STATE OF KERALA
SOMALATHA
K. HEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
