Allowed

B.Sainulabdeen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Aug 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/604/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal revision petition and acquitted the accused under Section 138 N.I. Act. The Court held that after the Narayanan decision, a specific assertion regarding the knowledge of a Power of Attorney holder regarding the transaction must be made in the complaint to sustain proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted; bail bond discharged.

B.Sainulabdeen Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 604 of 2015

¶6

CRA 206/2011 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

ST 1028/2006 of J.M.F.C.-VIII, TRIVANDRUM

¶8

-------------------

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶10

B.SAINULABDEEN TC NO.48/327, NISILA MANZIL, CHERUKODE LANE, WEST SASTRI NAGAR, KUNCHALUMOODU, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV.SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

2. CHITHRA RAGHAVAN, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF GOMATHY AMMA & VIJAYAARAGHAVAN, 150, CHAITHRA, GANDHI NAGAR, 1ST STREET, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM, PIN-695 014.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR

¶16

SRI.A.ABDUL KHARIM

¶17

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

STK

¶20

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶21

--------------------------------

¶22

Crl.R.P. No.604 of 2015

¶23

Dated this the 7^th day of August, 2018

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, 'the N.I.Act').

¶26

Heard.

¶27

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

¶28

has submitted that the complaint was filed by the power of attorney holder of the complainant without specifically ascertaining the knowledge of the power of attorney holder with regard to the transactions involved in this case and in the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra [2013(4) KLT 21] to buttress his submission.

¶29

The Apex Court in Narayanan (supra) held that

¶30

Crl.R.P. No.604 of 2015

¶31

-: 2 :-

¶32

filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, through the power of attorney is perfectly legal and competent. It was further held by the Apex Court that the power of attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the court in order to prove the contents of the complaint, provided the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the transactions. The Apex Court further held in Narayanan (supra) that it is required by the complainant to make specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said transaction, explicitly in the complaint and the power of attorney holder, who has no knowledge regarding the transactions, cannot be examined as a witness in the case.

¶33

In this case, the complainant did not make any specific assertion in the complaint with regard to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the transaction involved in this case. In the said

¶34

Crl.R.P. No.604 of 2015

¶35

-: 3 :-

¶36

circumstances, the cognizance taken by the court below and the subsequent proceedings including the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained.

¶37

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and the revision petitioner stands acquitted for the said offence. The bail bond of the revision petitioner stands discharged.

¶38

Needless to state that if the revision petitioner had already deposited any amount before the trial court pursuant to the direction of this Court, the revision petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the said amount from the trial court.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶41

STK

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

B.Sainulabdeen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Sainulabdeen v. State of Kerala

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

Mathew John Vs Joseph Augustine

C.Suryanarayana Bhat Vs Purushothaman M.

Thoppil Chits Ltd. Vs K.Krishnakumar Prabhu

Babu Mohan P.B. Vs Baby Paul

Kumar Vs Pushantha Kumar

Dai. K. Augustine Vs State of Kerala