IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 352 of 2008()
1. M.VALSAN,S/O.VASU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. T.P.PRADEEP, S/O.BHASKARAN'PROPRIETOR
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SUDHISH
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :11/06/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.Appeal.No.352 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Appellant is the complainant in a prosecution under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance was taken.
Trial commenced. The learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the
impugned judgment of acquittal on the short ground that the
evidence of PW2 shows that the account remained closed on the
date when the cheque was presented. No other grounds are
shown to support the judgment of acquittal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in
the light of the decision in Vathsan v. Japahari [2003(3) KLT
972] and Salim v. Thomas [2004(1) KLT 816], the judgment of
acquittal is unsustainable in law.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that
these decisions cannot be said to apply squarely as in the instant
case the account remained closed not at the instance of the
accused but on the part of the action taken by the bank. The
counsel further submits that at any rate the accused may be
Crl.Appeal.No.352 of 2008 2
given a further opportunity to raise all his contentions before the
learned Magistrate. The law as it then had persuaded the
appellant obviously not to take up any other defence which was
available, it is submitted.
4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I
am satisfied, that the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves
to be set aside in the light of the decisions referred above. I am
satisfied that there is merit in the contention that further
opportunity has to be granted to the accused.
5. In the result:
a) This Crl.Appeal is allowed;
b) The impugned judgment of acquittal is set aside;
c) The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the
case afresh in accordance with law.
6. The parties shall appear before the learned Magistrate
on 21.07.08 without waiting for any further directions. The
Registry shall send back records to the court below forthwith such
that the records reach the learned Magistrate well prior to
21.07.08.
Crl.Appeal.No.352 of 2008 3
7. It is made clear that both parties shall be at liberty to
adduce further evidence after the matter reaches the learned
Magistrate. The learned Magistrate must make every
endeavour to dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as
possible considering the fact that the proceedings have been
initiated as early as in 1997.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-