Dismissed

Raveendran v. Mohanan

Kerala HC17 Oct 2016CRL.A/134/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the complainant against an acquittal. The court held that mere admission of signature on a dishonoured cheque does not establish consideration or legally enforceable debt, thus failing to attract presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The impugned judgment was found to be correct.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed as there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal.

Raveendran Vs Mohanan — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/25TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

CRL.A.No. 134 of 2009

¶6

CC 127/2005 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHAVAKKAD DATED 31-01-2008

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

RAVEENDRAN, S/O.ALIKKAL APPUKUTTAN, KANDANASSERY P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER O.VIJAYAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, OLEDATH HOUSE, KARAKKAD DESOM, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED AND STATE:

¶11

1. MOHANAN, S/O.NEDIYEDATH RAGHAVAN, PUTHENPALLY, IRUNGAPPURAM P.O., CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

2. STATRE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITWIK

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶17

¶18

Crl. Appeal No.134 of 2009

¶19

Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2016

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶22

Challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by

¶23

the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chavakkad in C.C. No.127/2005, the complainant before the court below

¶24

has come up in appeal. The case before the court below is the result of a private complaint filed by the appellant herein as complainant, against the 1^st respondent herein as accused, alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case of the complainant is that the accused had borrowed an amount of ₹1 lakh from the complainant on 09.09.2004 and when the complainant demanded the amount, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 15.10.2004 in discharge of the said

¶25

Crl.A.134/2009

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

liability. The said cheque, when presented, returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds in the accounts of the accused. The notice issued under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act did not evoke any response and hence, the complaint.

¶28

On the side of the complainant, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. No defence evidence was adduced. The court below found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and acquitted him under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. through the impugned judgment.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the appeal was filed through the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant and presently, the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant is not interested in proceeding with the appeal. It has also been pointed out that in spite of repeated efforts, he has not turned up so that

¶31

Crl.A.134/2009

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

the learned counsel for the appellant is, in fact, incapacitated to present the actual facts before this Court. It has also been pointed out that the communication issued by the learned counsel for the appellant to the complainant is returned as unclaimed.

¶34

On hearing either side, this Court is satisfied that there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment by the court below. The court below has considered at length the fact that the complainant had failed to bring out prima facie materials to invite the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act. It is true that from the cross-examination of PW1, it has come out that the accused had admitted his signature in Ext.P1 cheque. At the same time, the mere admission of the signature itself cannot invite the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act. The admission of signature alone will not constitute proof of execution. On a perusal of the entire evidence, this Court is satisfied that the complainant is not

¶35

Crl.A.134/2009

¶36

: 4 :

¶37

entitled to the presumptions available under Sections 118(a)

¶38

and 139 of the N.I. Act in this case. As rightly found by the

¶39

court below, there is nothing to hold that Ext.P1 cheque was supported by consideration and that the same was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability.

¶40

Matters being so, there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment. This Criminal Appeal is devoid of merits and is only to be dismissed, and I do so.

¶41

In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶42

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶43

aks/17/10

¶44

// True Copy //

¶45

PA to Judge

Raveendran v. Mohanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raveendran v. Mohanan

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

Shafi Musaliar Vs G.Sundara Rajan and Another

Prabhakaran Vs Sathyan

Abu Haji Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Hariharan Vs P.K.Nandakumar and Another

Ramesh Vs State of Kerala

P.S. Hamsa Vs Dr.M.K. Basheer and Others