Dismissed

T.Rugmini v. Sarath P.P.

Kerala HC5 Mar 2018CRL.A/895/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appellate court dismissed the complainant's criminal appeal against the acquittal of the accused in a cheque dishonour case. Upholding the lower court's finding that the simultaneous presentation of cheques and the unusual timing of fund withdrawal raised reasonable doubt about the transaction's authenticity, the court held there was no basis for interference.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal is dismissed; the acquittal of the respondent is upheld.

T.Rugmini Vs Sarath P.P. — 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

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

CRL.A.No. 895 of 2017 IN CRLP. 303/2017 STC NO. 32 OF 2016 DATED 29-6-2017 OF JFCM-V, KANNUR Crl.L.P. 303/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶6

APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT

¶7

T.RUGMINI

¶8

AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. ESAWARAN, EMBRANTHIRI, MADAMANA ILLAM, KAYARALAM AMSOM & DESOM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

¶10

SRI.K.V.SASIDHARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/ACCSUED AND STATE:

¶12

SARATH P.P.

¶13

S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, 426 A(9/294), PUTHIYA PURAYIL, KOLENCHERRY P.O, PERUMACHERRY P.O, PERUMASSERY, KANNUR - 670 602.

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. E.C. BINEESH

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶19

Crl. Appeal No. 895 of 2017

¶20

Dated this the 5^th day of March, 2018

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The appellant is the complainant in S.T. No. 32 of 2016 on the files of the court below. The appellant filed a complaint against the first respondent herein alleging offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The court below acquitted the accused after trial, against which this appeal has been filed by the complainant after obtaining special leave from this Court.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The contention of the complainant is that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 11 lakhs from her on 23-8-2013 and towards the discharge of the said liability, the accused issued Exts. P1 and P2 cheques. The accused, on the other hand, had a contention that the son of the

¶25

Crl. Appeal No. 895 of 2017

¶26

-2-

¶27

complainant had business transaction with the accused and during the said period, the son of the complainant managed to obtain two signed cheques from the accused and the said cheques had been misutilised by the complainant to file the present complaint.

¶28

The contention of the complainant and the evidence of PW1 would show that the amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- was borrowed by the accused on 23-8-2013 at the residence of PW1. Exts. P1 and P2 cheques were also issued simultaneously at the time of borrowing the amount. The evidence of PW4 coupled with Exts. P4 and P5 would show that the above said cheques were presented before the bank on 23-8-2013 itself. The court below rightly found that the presentation of Exts. P1 and P2 cheques on the date of lending the amount would cast doubt about the case put forward by PW1, particularly when PW1 had no explanation for the same. PW1 would state that the money was borrowed on 23-8-2013. Exts. P1 and P2 cheques were dated 23-08-2013. The said cheques were also issued on

¶29

Crl. Appeal No. 895 of 2017

¶30

-3-

¶31

23-8-2013. Exts. P1 and P2 cheques were presented before the bank on the same day. If the accused had money with him on 23-8-203, there was hardly any need for the accused to borrow money from PW1 on that date. In view of the above reasons, the finding of the court below in this regard does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶32

As regards the source of income , PW1 stated that she had availed a loan for the business purpose of her son. She had an amount of Rs. 1 lakh as her pension savings. The loan was availed by the complainant on 12-11-2012. However, the said amount was withdrawn from the Bank only on 15-8-2013 as per the evidence of PW1. However, PW2, the son of PW1 stated that the said amount was withdrawn from the Bank on 23-08-2013.

¶33

The court below rightly found that after having obtained a loan on 12-11-2012, it was unbelievable that PW1 would keep the said amount in the bank for such a long period without withdrawing the same from the bank.

¶34

Crl. Appeal No. 895 of 2017

¶35

It is unbelievable that eventhough the loan was sanctioned on 12-11-2012, PW2 did not withdraw the said amount till 23-8-2013.

¶36

On an anxious consideration of the evidence on record, I am satisfied that the reasons stated by the court below for acquitting the accused are sound and reasonable. In the said circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the court below.

¶37

In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.

¶38

Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶39

ani/

T.Rugmini v. Sarath P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Rugmini v. Sarath P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co.(Pvt) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Peter M.S. Vs State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Daniel Cherian Vs State of Kerala

Devadas Vs State of Kerala

Prakasan K. Vs P.Sidharthan

Maipally Bhaskaran Vs State of Kerala