IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl L P No. 169 of 2007()
1. K.K.SIVAKUMAR, S/O.KOTTUKKAL KUNJITTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.V.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.CHERAMPARAMBIL
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.SHAJI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN
Dated :19/03/2007
O R D E R
K. Thankappan, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.L.P. No. 169 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2007
O R D E R
This is a petition to special leave to appeal filed by the complainant
in S.T.No.597/2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II,
Thrissur. In the complaint it is stated that the 1st respondent borrowed an
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner and in discharge of the above
debt, he issued a post dated cheque to the petitioner and when the cheque
was presented for encashment, the same was bounced for want of sufficient
funds in the account of the 1st respondent. On the side of the prosecution,
PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. After closing the
evidence of the petitioner, the 1st respondent was questioned under section
313 Cr.P.C., he stated that there was no liability between the petitioner and
the 1st respondent. He also stated that the cheque was presented for
encashment after the expiry of the period and hence the cheque would not
create any liability on him as per section 73 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. To substantiate his case, Exts.D1 to D3 were marked. After considering
the evidence adduced on either side, the trial court found that the cheque
had reached the bank of the accused after the expiry of its validity period
Crl.LP 169/07 2
and hence no cause of action would arise on the basis of that cheque.
Section 73 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a cheque must in order to
charge any person to be presented within a reasonable time. It is proved that
Ext.P2 cheque was presented by the petitioner after the expiry of its validity
period. Hence, the conclusion arrived at by the trial court does not require
any interference by this Court. Accordingly, leave to appeal is rejected.
K. Thankappan,
Judge.
mn.
Crl.LP 169/07 3
K.Thankappan,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.l.P.No. 135 /2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ORDER
2-3-2007