Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2021 (5) TMI 843

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able Instruments Act, hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act. According to the complainant, in order to discharge a pre-existing liability, the accused/first respondent had issued him a cheque on 17.03.2008 for Rs. 3,00,000/-. It is the cheque bearing No. 625093 dated 17.03.2008 for Rs. 3,00,000/-, drawn on Thoppumbady branch of Centurian Bank Limited. At the time of issuing and handing over the cheque, he was made to believe that there is sufficient amount in the credit of the first respondent. Believing that version, the appellant presented the cheque through the Vayalar East Service Co-operative Society Limited on 27.03.2008. But it was returned dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. He received back the cheque on 16.04.2008. There....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respondent, the claim is not genuine. Thereafter, first respondent gave evidence as DW1. He gave a statement as given during the examination under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. At the time of examining PW1, the appellant had stated that the first respondent and the brother of the appellant were working together in the Fire Station near the Rama Varma Club. DW2, the Fire Station Officer was examined to belie this version. DW3 is the said K.D.Sunilkumar, the brother of the appellant. DW3 was declared hostile to the prosecution and was cross examined by the first respondent. After hearing counsel on both sides, by the impugned judgment, the learned Magistrate found that the appellant could not prove that the Ext.P1 cheque was issued in dis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tal negation of the settled principles of law proceeded to acquit the first respondent, which is bad. 3. The following authorities were also relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant:- i) Uttam Ram v. Devinder Singh Hudan and Another [2019(5) KHC 179] : [2019 (10) SCC 287] ii) Jacob K.M. v. State of Kerala and Another [ILR 2020 (1) Ker.677] iii) Sunitha v. Sheela Antony and Another [2020 (3) KLT 340] iv) Sandhya Rani G. v. State of Kerala and Another [2020(2) KLT 594] v) Gopakumar v. Anilkumar [2011(4) KLT SN 39 (C. No. 37)] vi) Joseph Jose v. Baby [2002 (3) KLT SN 46 (C. No. 64)] vii) Devan v. Krishna Menon [2010 (2) KLT 397] viii) Mohanan v. Bibhukumar [2003(1) KLT 604] and ix) Moideen v. Johny [2006(3) KLJ 48]....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h was not responded and that gave a cause of action for instituting a complaint against the first respondent. While the appellant contended that the transaction had originated on the recommendations of DW3 his brother, it is the admitted case that the DW3 and the first respondent are members of service of the Fire and Rescue Department; for some time both of them were working together in Thrikkakara Fire Station and thereafter, they are working in different units. According to the appellant, on the recommendation of the brother, the appellant had lent an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the first respondent. At that time itself Ext. P1 cheque was handed over and thereafter, he detracted from the promise and that led to this prosecution. On the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Now the remaining question is whether the cheque is proved to have been executed by the first respondent. For the same, there is only the oral testimony of PW1. DW3, though said that he has knowledge about the transaction, he has no direct knowledge and his evidence is only hearsay, which cannot advance the case of the appellant. 6. As rightly noticed by the trial court, a consistent case cannot be inferred in the version of PW1, with regard to the transaction. PW1 was examined twice. At first, he said that the amount was handed over sometimes in January, 2008 and that the cheque was issued on 17.03.2008. But at the second phase of his examination, he said that the amount was handed over and the cheque was issued on the same day. In tha....