Single Judge appellate court dismissed the criminal appeal under S. 138 NI Act. The court upheld the trial court's acquittal, finding the complainant's version inconsistent regarding the lendee and the lending mode unbelievable given the complainant's business practices.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; acquittal of the accused persons by the Court below affirmed.
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.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 27TH MAGHA, 1939
CRL.A.No. 138 of 2010
CC 68/2009 of J.M.F.C., KODUNGALLUR
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT
DASAN, S/O. KUTTAN, ELAYARMPURAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KOORIKUZHI, KAIPAMANGALAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE:
1. SULAIKHA, W/O. HAMSA, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, CHALINGAD, KAIPAMANGALAM,KODUNGALLOOR.
2. SHAMEERA, W/O. AKBAR, POOKKAKKILLATH HOUSE, P.O.CHALINGAD, KAIPAMANGALAM,, KODUNGALLOOR.
3. SHAJITHA, W/O. YOUSEPH, THOTTUMPARMBATH HOUSE, P.O.CHALINGAD, KAIPAMANGALAM, KODUNGALLOOR.
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
STK
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
--------------------------------
Crl. Appeal No.138 of 2010
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the complainant before the court below in C.C.No.68/2009, which was a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short “the NI Act”). The court below after the trial acquitted the accused, against which this appeal has been filed after obtaining special leave from this Court.
Crl. Appeal No.138 of 2010
-: 2 :-
Daya Kudumbasree. However, during cross-examination of PW1, he specifically stated that no amount was given to Daya Kudumbasree. It was stated by PW1 that the money was given to the accused persons and not to Daya Kudumbasree. In view of the above reason, the court below found that PW1 was not having consistent version with regard to the lending of money. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I do not find any reason to deviate from the above finding of the court below.
Crl. Appeal No.138 of 2010
-: 3 :-
that the petitioner who was running a financial institution and who used to lend money exceeding Rs.2000/- only on the strength of security documents, would lend money to the accused persons without collecting any security from them. Having gone through the evidence of PW1, I do not find any reason to deviate from the said finding of the court below as well.
In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,
STK
//TRUE COPY//
//P.A. TO JUDGE//
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there was consistency in the version of the complainant regarding the lendee of funds to establish charging under S. 138 NI Act.
Whether the lending of large sum without security by a money lender makes the prosecution unbelievable.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal of the accused by the trial court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
DASAN
STATE
SULAIKHA
SHAMEERA
SHAJITHA
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
