Dismissed

Y.S. Sreenivasan v. State

Kerala HC12 Dec 2017Crl.Rev.Pet/241/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala heard a criminal revision petition challenging the discharge of an accused in a case of cheating and dishonour of a cheque. The Court examined whether the material satisfied the ingredients of Section 420 IPC. It held that the complainant could not prove the accused had a dishonest intention at the time of borrowing money. Consequently, the discharge order of the Magistrat

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed, upholding the order of discharge of the accused by the learned Magistrate.

Y.S. Sreenivasan Vs State — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 241 of 2003 ( ) -------------------------------CC 525/1999 of J.M.F.C.-II, PALAKKAD DATED 31.7.2001

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT :-

¶7

P.S. SREENIVASAN, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN,

¶8

"YESODA", KONGAD P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.VARGHESE SRI.N.SASI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED :-

¶11

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

¶12

2. GOPALAKRISHNAN.N., MARUTHOKKAD HOUSE, KONGAD P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

P.UBAID, J.

¶16

Crl.R.P. No.241 of 2003

¶17

Dated this the 12^th day of December 2017

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The revision petitioner herein is the complainant in C.C.525/1999 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – II, Palakkad, and the 2^nd respondent herein is the accused in the said case. The complainant initiated prosecution against the accused under Section 420 IPC on the allegation that on 1.6.1997, the accused borrowed an amount of 1,10,000/- from him, and a cheque for 1,00,000/- later issued by him in discharge of the liability was bounced on the ground that the accused had, by the time, closed the account. The complainant issued statutory notice, but later, he brought a complaint under Section 420 IPC, instead of bringing complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After necessary enquiry under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate took cognizance, and issued summons to the accused. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and denied the accusations. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate recorded evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Crl.R.P. No.241 of 2003

¶21

-: 2 :-

¶22

The complainant examined himself, and proved Exts.P1 to P6 documents. On a judicious evaluation of the evidence adduced by the complainant, the learned Magistrate came to a finding that there is no material to frame a charge against the accused under Section 420 IPC. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate discharged the accused under Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C., by order dated 31.7.2001. The said order is under challenge in this revision.

¶23

The very short question for consideration in this revision is whether there is any material to satisfy the ingredients of Section 420 IPC in this case. Money was borrowed by the accused on 1.6.1997, and the cheque dated 19.10.1997 was issued by the accused on 1.9.1997. The cheque was presented for collection, but it was bounced. During the enquiry under Section 200 Cr.P.C., statement was given by the complainant on oath. In the said statement, he did not state anything regarding the cheating alleged by him. His statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is only regarding the issuance of the cheque, and also the bouncing of the cheque. When asked by the learned Magistrate whether he has anything further to say, he said he has nothing further to add. Probably the learned

¶24

Crl.R.P. No.241 of 2003

¶25

-: 3 :-

¶26

Magistrate asked such a question with the object of eliciting the ingredients of Section 420 IPC from his statement. But the complainant did not say anything regarding the essentials of Section 420 IPC, or the dishonest intention of the accused, when examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

¶27

In court, the complainant gave evidence as PW1. He stated that the accused issued the cheque with the object of cheating, but, the material question is what exactly was the intention of the accused when he borrowed the amount. The prosecution under Section 420 IPC can be initiated in respect of the borrowal allegedly made by the accused only if, the complainant has got a case that money was borrowed by the accused with the object of cheating him, or with the intention of causing some dishonest loss to him. What is very material is the intention, or the state of mind of the accused at the time of borrowal. The present prosecution is not based on the bouncing of the cheque, but based on the actual transaction of borrowal. So, the very material point must be whether the accused had any dishonest intention to cheat the complainant when he borrowed the money. On this aspect, there is nothing in the evidence of the complainant. His evidence would also show

¶28

Crl.R.P. No.241 of 2003

¶29

-: 4 :-

¶30

that he had not actually witnessed the accused executing the cheque. Even according to him, it was sent to him through somebody else along with a letter. Any way, in the absence of anything in the evidence of the complainant, or in the statements given by him under Section 200 Cr.P.C. to constitute the essentials of the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, a charge cannot be framed under Section 420 IPC. I find that the accused was rightly discharged by the learned Magistrate.

¶31

In the result, this revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Jvt/18.12.2017

Y.S. Sreenivasan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.S. Sreenivasan v. State

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

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Hassan @ Kunhan Vs the S.I. of Police

M/S.Premier Plantations Ltd. Vs the Registrar of Companies

T.K.Aboobacker Vs Drugs Inspector,Kozhikode

G.Mohan Vs a.Jaya Kumar

E.Moideen Bhava Vs State of Kerla