In an appeal against the acquittal of the accused for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act, the court observed that an offence was not maintainable as the cheque was issued after the account was closed. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the appellant.
Appellant permitted to withdraw the appeal with liberty to initiate other proceedings.
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
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/1ST BHADRA, 1938
CRL.A.No. 687 of 2009
C.C.NO. 712/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ERATTUPETTA
APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT :
TOMICHAN T.V.,
THATTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALATHOOKADAVU P.O., THALAPPULAM VILLAGE.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR
SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED :
1. VEENUS AGUSTINE, S/O. AUGUSTINE, THAYYIL HOUSE, TEEKOY P.O., TEEKOY VILLAGE.
2. STATE OF KERALA, ITS REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. MAYA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
================
Crl.A. No.687 of 2009
======================= Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2016
JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the
Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Erattupetta in C.C.No.712/2006, 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 1st respondent herein as accused, alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the appellant, the cheque in question was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused as well as on the ground that the account was closed. It is the specific case of the appellant that the accused had deliberately closed the account in the bank.
Crl.A. No.687 of 2009
2
The account was closed on 23.06.2004; whereas, the cheque was allegedly issued on 15.09.2006. In such case, going by the decision of this Court in Muralidharan.V. v. V.A.Kumaran and another [2016 (3) KHC 845], an offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act cannot be attracted. It was held by this Court that, in such case, an offence under Section 420, can be attracted.
This appeal is therefore dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE
stu
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE.
Crl.A. No.687 of 2009
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a chequer issued after the closure of the account constitues an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
Whether the appellant is permitted to withdraw the criminal appeal
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Muralidharan.V. v. V.A.Kumaran and anotherDistinguished¶25
Muralidharan.V. v. V.A.Kumaran and another [2016 (3) KHC 845]
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Tomichan T.V.
Veenus Augustine
State of Kerala
B. Kemal Pasha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
