This criminal appeal challenging an acquittal under Section 138 NI Act was dismissed. The Kerala High Court held that the complainant failed to prove proper authorization to sue for the bank's amalgamated entity, thus the acquittal required no interference.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; acquittal of the accused under Section 138 NI Act 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 MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/3RD BHADRA, 1938
CRL.A.No. 387 of 2009 (C)
ST.5111/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, PALAKKAD, DATED 22-11-2008
APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 123, ANGAPPA NICKEN STREET, CHENNAI, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.VENUGOPALAN.P.T., LEGAL CONSULTANT SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD, SREEPADAM BUILDING, CHEROOTY ROAD, CALICUT.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & ACCUSED:
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
2. A.SUNIL, S/O.BALASUBRAMANIAN.K.V., SUBHAVAN, T.K. THARA, KODUVAYUR PO., PALAKKAD.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA R2 BY ADVS. SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
B. KEMAL PASHA, J.
Crl. Appeal No.387 of 2009
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2016
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by
the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Palakkad in ST Case No.5111/2006, the complainant before the court below has come up in appeal. The case before the court below is as a result of a private complaint filed by the appellant herein as complainant, against the 2nd respondent herein as accused, alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
had approached the complainant for financial assistance to purchase a commercial vehicle and by utilising the financial
Crl.A.387/2009
: 2 :
nursing advanced by the appellant, the 2nd respondent purchased a vehicle. Towards the repayment of the amount due to the complainant, the accused issued Ext.P2 cheque dated 01.01.2005 for ₹7,50,317/-. The said cheque, when presented, returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds in the accounts of the accused. Consequently, demand notice as contemplated under Section 138(b) of the NI Act was issued, which did not evoke any response and hence, the complaint.
Crl.A.387/2009
: 3 :
Ram Transport Finance Company Limited in favour of one Thankavelu. Thankavelu has not come into the picture. Thankavelu has not been examined before the court below.
Crl.A.387/2009
: 4 :
by the court below cannot be found fault with in any manner.
PW1 had not proved that he was authorised properly to represent Sree Ram Transport Finance Company Limited. Matters being so, the impugned judgment passed by the court below does not call for any interference at all. This Criminal Appeal is devoid of merits and is only to be dismissed, and I do so.
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)
aks/25/08
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned acquittal judgment should be interfered with when the complainant failed to prove proper authority to represent the company via Power of Attorney.
SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD.
STATE OF KERALA
A.SUNIL
B.KEMAL PASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
