IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL A No. 641 of 1999()
1. V.PRASANNAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.S.SUMESH
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN
Dated :30/05/2007
O R D E R
K.THANKAPPAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
CRL. APPEAL NO.641 OF 1999
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2007
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the judgment in S.T. No.217 of 1996 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court II, Alappuzha. The
complaint was filed against the first respondent herein alleging
commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The case of the appellant – complainant was that the accused –
first respondent borrowed from him an amount of Rs.85,000/- and issued
Ext.P1 cheque in favour of the appellant in discharge of the said liability
and that when the cheque in question was presented to the bank for
encashment, the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in
the account of the first respondent. On completing the statutory
provisions, the complaint was filed. To prove the case against the first
respondent, the appellant was examined as PW.1 and the Manager of the
bank was examined as PW.2 and Exts.P1 to P6 were produced. On the
CRL.APPEAL NO.641/1999 2
side of the defence, DW.1 was examined and Ext.D1 was produced. On
closing the evidence of the complainant, the accused was questioned under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the alleged transaction as well as issuance
of the cheque in question. At the same time, DW.1, the father of the
accused when examined stated that he had borrowed an amount of
Rs.10,000/- from the appellant and had issued a cheque which belonged to
the account of the first respondent without the knowledge of the first
respondent. DW.1 further stated that when he issued the cheque to the
appellant, the first respondent was a minor aged below 18 years. The trial
court finding that the first respondent was a minor at the time when his
father issued the cheque in question and that the appellant failed to prove
any transaction between him and the first respondent acquitted the
accused.
3. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that Ext.P1 cheque
belonged to the account of the first respondent and hence the learned
Magistrate went wrong in passing the order of acquittal.
4. The trial court found that the first respondent was aged only 17
at the time of the alleged issuance of Ext.P1 cheque. The trial court also
CRL.APPEAL NO.641/1999 3
found that no evidence was adduced by the appellant to show that there
was any financial transaction between the appellant and the first
respondent and that the first respondent himself had issued the cheque in
question. The trial court further found from the evidence of DW.1 that the
cheque in question was issued by DW.1 without the knowledge of the first
respondent. Even though the appellant had given evidence to the effect
that the first respondent came to his house, accepted the money and gave
Ext.P1 cheque, there was no evidence to support his statement. Further,
no question was put to DW.1 as to whether the cheque in question was
issued by the account holder and whether the account was opened by the
first respondent as per law as he was a minor during the relevant time. The
appellant had also not chosen to make DW.1 a party to the proceedings
under Section 420 I.P.C. All these reasons would show that the finding of
the trial court is based on evidence. In the above circumstances, the
impugned judgment requires no interference.
The Crl. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)
sp/
CRL.APPEAL NO.641/1999 4
K.THANKAPPAN, J.
CRL.APPEAL NO.641/99
JUDGMENT
30TH MAY, 2007.
CRL.APPEAL NO.641/1999 5