This Criminal Appeal was dismissed. The Court held that a time-barred debt can be revived by the issuance of a cheque. However, the acquittal stood because the complainant failed to prove the date of receipt of the statutory notice, which was a condition precedent under Section 138.
No relief was granted to the appellant; the acquittal was 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 MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 149 of 2006 ( )
AGAINST THE ORDER IN Crl.L.P. 743/2005 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 04-01-2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 23/2000 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOZHIKODE DATED 21.12.2004
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT::
P. SREESAKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, INDO SCALES, P.O. CHEMMAD MALAPPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED::
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LILLY LESLIE
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AV
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
Crl.Appeal No.149 of 2006
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2015
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order of acquittal of the accused in S.T.No.23 of 2000 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode, the complainant comes up in appeal, after obtaining leave of this Court.
The complainant came forward with a case that, the accused had borrowed a sum of 50,000/- from him on 14.05.1996 and when₹ the money was demanded back, he issued a cheque on 14.06.1999, which is marked as Ext.P2. The cheque was duly presented for encashment but, it was returned for insufficiency of funds. A statutory notice was issued. Since the amount remained unpaid, the complaint was laid.
2
Crl.Appeal No.149 of 2006
questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances pointed out to him and maintained that he is not liable. In defence, he examined DWs.1 to 5 and had Exts.D1 to D7 marked. Ext.C1 was marked as court exhibit.
3
Crl.Appeal No.149 of 2006
unable to do so for want of production of the relevant documents by PW2. The learned counsel pointed out that, reasonable time ought to have been taken by the court below to come to the conclusion that, the memo was served on the appellant of dishonour. Viewed from that angle, the acquittal is unfounded.
Crl.Appeal No.149 of 2006
4
To that extent the court below is justified in its conclusion. If that be so, this appeal is without merits and is liable to be
dismissed. I do so.
Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
AV
/True Copy/
P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal is sustainable on the ground that the debt is time-barred.
Whether the complainant discharged the burden of proving the date of receipt of the memo of dishonour.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P. SREESAKUMAR
P.K. RAGHAVAN
STATE OF KERALA
P. BHAVADASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
