Dismissed

M/S.Muthoot Leasing and Finance Limited Now Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Limited v. Manoj Kumar D

Kerala HC23 Feb 2018CRL.A/1155/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal by a complainant challenged the acquittal of an accused for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the NI Act. The High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the cheque was for a due amount due to non-production of transaction records by the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal stands dismissed; acquittal of the accused is upheld.

M/S.Muthoot Leasing and Finance Limited Now Muthoot Vehicle… — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1155 of 2014

¶6

CC 1112/2009 of J.M.F.C.-I, CHERTHALA CRA 57/2014 of SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:-

¶8

M/S.MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LIMITED NOW MUTHOOT VEHICLE AND ASSET FINANCE LIMITED 2ND FLOOR, OPP.SARITHA THEATRE COMPLEX, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, BABY SUJATHA, W/O.JAISUREJ S., SAISUREJ HOUSE, THAMARASSERY ROAD, POONITHURA P.O., THRIPUNITHURA - 682 038.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.JAYABAL MENON JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND STATE:-:

¶11

MANOJ KUMAR D

¶12

MANIBHAVANAM, VARANAM P.O., CHERTHALA - 688 555.

¶13

STATE OF KERALA,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF

¶15

KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. C.V MANU WILSON(BY ORDER)

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.MANU GOVIND

¶19

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI E C BINEESH

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶22

¶23

Crl. Appeal No.1155 of 2014

¶24

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23^rd day of February 2018

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

The appellant is the complainant in C.C. No.1112 of

¶27

2009 on the files of the court below.

¶28

The appellant filed a complaint against the first respondent herein before the court below alleging offence

¶29

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N I Act'). After the trial, the court below acquitted the accused, against which this appeal has been

¶30

filed after obtaining special leave from this court.

¶31

Heard both sides.

¶32

PW1 was examined on behalf of the complainant to

¶33

prove the case of the complainant. PW1 stated that the

¶34

accused availed a loan of Rs.32,700/- from the

¶35

Crl. Appeal No.1155/2014 : 2 :

¶36

complainant on 31.10.2006 for purchasing a vehicle. Since the accused did not repay the instalments, demand was made to the accused to pay the amount. Then the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant. Before issuing the said cheque, the accused surrendered the vehicle to the complainant.

¶37

The accused had a contention that the accused had repaid the entire instalments. However, a blank signed chque entrusted with the complainant by the accused at the time of availing the loan in the year 2006 had been misutilised by the complainant to file the present complaint. PW1 stated that complainant is having the records relating to the amount due to the complainant from the accused. However, no such document was produced before the court to prove that the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque was

¶38

Crl. Appeal No.1155/2014 : 3 :

¶39

due to the complainant from the accused.

¶40

The Honourable Apex Court in M. S. Narayana

¶41

Menon Alias Mani v. State of Kerala and another [(2006) 6 SCC 39] held that in case of dishonour of a cheque alleged to have been issued towards outstanding dues in business dealing, if the account books are not produced by the complainant, the contention of the accused that the cheque

¶42

was issued as a security can be believed and the conviction can be set aside.

¶43

Admittedly, the present transaction is a business transaction. Even though the accused had a specific contention that the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque was not due to the complainant, the complainant did not incline to produce the records pertaining to the transaction between the complainant and the accused to prove that the

¶44

Crl. Appeal No.1155/2014 : 4 :

¶45

amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque was due on the date of issuance of the said cheque. Since the complainant did not incline to produce the account details relating to the transaction between the accused and the complainant, it cannot be said that the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque was due to the complainant as on the date of issue of the said cheque.

¶46

The complainant is presently known as Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Limited. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the original name of the complainant was changed to Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Limited with effect from 18.9.2008. As per the evidence of PW1, Ext.P1 cheque was issued on 14.2.2009. Even though the cheque was allegedly issued on 14.2.2009, the same was seen issued in the name of

¶47

Crl. Appeal No.1155/2014 : 5 :

¶48

Muthoot Leasing and Finance Limited, instead of Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Limited. This would also probablise the contention of the accused that a blank signed cheque entrusted by the accused with the complainant had been mis-utilised by the complainant to file the present complaint. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am of the view that the prosecution could not establish that the accused executed Ext.P1 cheque as contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In the said circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment and the order of the court below acquitting the accused under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

¶49

In the result, this Crl.Appeal stands dismissed.

¶50

Sd/ B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶51

dl/

¶52

// True copy // PA to Judge

M/S.Muthoot Leasing and Finance Limited Now Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Limited v. Manoj Kumar D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Muthoot Leasing and Finance Limited Now Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Limited v. Manoj Kumar D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jibu D. Mathew Vs State Represented by the Inspector of Police

Shajitha Vs State of Kerala

M.Karunakaran Vs State

S.R.Abhilash Vs Geetha S. Nair

T.Thankachan Vs Sivakumar

Radhakrishnan Vs the State of Kerala