Dismissed

Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd v. State of Kerala & Another

Kerala HC20 Oct 2016CRL.A/97/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court dismissed an criminal appeal challenging a judgment of acquittal in a cheque dishonour case. The court found contradictions in the appellant's evidence regarding the Power of Attorney, total repayment amount, instalment period, and account statements, concluding the impugned judgment was correct.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2009 was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal of the respondent was upheld.

Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd Vs State of Kerala & Another — 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

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/28TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

CRL.A.No. 97 of 2009 (B)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC. NO.876/2005 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUNNAMKULAM DATED 25-11-2008.

¶7

APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT INVESTMENTS LTD.), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 123, ANGAPPA NAICKEN, STREET, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI.VENUGOPALAN P.T., LEGAL CONSULTANT, SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD., SREEPADAM BUILDING, CHEROOTY ROAD, CALICUT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶12

2. SAJI. M.R., S/O.RAMANKUTTY, MADHURAPULAKKAL HOUSE, PANGARAPPILLI, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR.

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶17

¶18

Crl. Appeal No.97 of 2009

¶19

Dated this the 20^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, Kunnamkulam in C.C.No.876/2005, the complainant before the court below

¶24

has come up in appeal. The complainant is M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited. The case before the court below is the result of a private complaint filed by the said complainant, against the 2^nd 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 obtained a hire purchase loan amount of ₹5,90,000/- from the complainant for the purchase of a bus and the loan amount had to be repaid in 36 monthly instalments. The total amount to be repaid was calculated as ₹9,02,884/-. The accused committed default in payment of instalments and thereby the

¶25

Crl.A.97/2009

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

balance amount was demanded by the complainant. Then, the accused approached the complainant and issued Ext.P3 cheque dated 25.08.2004 for ₹1,60,540/-. The said cheque, when presented, returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds in the accounts of the accused. Notice under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act was caused to be issued to the accused, which evoked the response through a reply by the accused in which false allegations have been made. The amount was not paid as demanded, and hence the complaint.

¶28

On the side of the complainant, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P10 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 2^nd respondent.

¶30

Crl.A.97/2009

¶31

: 3 :

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued

¶33

that the reasons pointed out by the court below to acquit the

¶34

accused are not genuine or correct. Per contra , learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent has supported the impugned judgment.

¶35

According to PW1, he was appointed as the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant through Ext.P1 Power of Attorney allegedly executed in his favour by M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited. It is the further case of PW1 that the complainant company had amalgamated with M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited. Even though PW1 claims that he was appointed as the Power of Attorney Holder by M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited through Ext.P1 Power of Attorney, Ext.P1 shows that the said Power of Attorney was executed by M/s.Shriram Investments Limited. Even PW1 has no case that he was appointed as the Power of Attorney Holder by M/s.Shriram Investments Limited.

¶36

Crl.A.97/2009

¶37

: 4 :

¶38

Apart from the above, it seems that the contents of Ext.P9 statement of accounts are contrary to the contents of the complaint. In the complaint, it has been clearly averred that an amount of ₹9,02,884/- had to be repaid by the accused in 36 monthly instalments. According to PW1 also, the said amount had to be repaid in 36 monthly instalments.

¶39

PW1 has clearly admitted that the vehicle in question was seized by the higher purchase company and the same was sold by them. At the same time, Ext.P9 does not show that the said amount obtained through the sale of the vehicle has not been credited in the said account. On getting the demand notice, the accused had issued a reply stating that at the time when the hire purchase transaction was entered into, three blank signed cheque leaves and blank signed stamp papers were obtained by the complainant from the accused. The case of the accused is that one among the said cheque leaves has been misused

¶40

Crl.A.97/2009

¶41

: 5 :

¶42

as Ext.P3 by the complainant.

¶43

Apart from all the above, Ext.P9 statement of

¶44

accounts shows that the transaction was for 60 monthly instalments. The contents of the complaint as well as the contents of the affidavit in lieu of chief examination filed by PW1 are contradictory to Ext.P9. In the beginning of the cross-examination also, PW1 has considered the transaction as one for 36 months. Thereafter, he has switched on to a contention that the transaction was for 60 monthly instalments. From all these, this Court is of the view that there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the court below. The appeal is devoid of merits and is only to be dismissed, and I do so.

¶45

In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶47

aks/20/10

¶48

// True Copy //

¶49

PA to Judge

Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd v. State of Kerala & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd v. State of Kerala & Another

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

Sekharan.K. Vs State of Kerala

Ajeesh Chandran Vs State of Kerala

R.Sarathchandran Vs State of Kerala

Antony Vs Sam George

Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd., Vs State of Kerala & Another

Mundikutty Vs State of Kerala