IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 1998 of 2003()
1. B.S.ANIL KUMAR S/O. BHASKARAN PIALLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S PRECIOUS CARRYING CORPORATION,
... Respondent
2. J.P.ARYA, M.D., DO.
3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHN BRITTO
For Respondent :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :28/07/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------
CRL.A.NO.1998 OF 2003
------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal preferred against the order of acquittal
passed in C.C.No.349/1999 of the JFCM-II, Kollam. It is the
case of the complainant that the first accused company by
name M/s. Precious Carrying Corporation Ltd had borrowed a
sum of Rs. Two lakhs and towards the discharge of the same
had issued a cheque which when presented for encashment had
been returned. The case of the accused 1 and 2 appears to be
that though the 3rd accused was their Manager, he was not
authorised to receive any loan on behalf of the company and
that he had cheated the company and misappropriated the
funds of the company and therefore, there is no liability for the
company in the event of any cheque being issued by him. So,
the crux of the matter depends upon the following matters. (1)
What was the authority of the third accused in borrowing the
amount (2) Whether the issuance of cheque is tainted with
illegality. If the third accused was a person competent to
operate the account of the company and also borrow the
amount, then a person who had advanced money cannot be
CRL.A.NO.1998/03 2
defeated because of the inter se dispute between the
company and its employees. It is for them to work it out
against that person. Suppose the company has not authorised
this person to take loan for the purpose of the business and it
is vested with some other person then it is a cheque issued by
an incompetent person and therefore it may not have any
binding effect on the company.
These are all matters which requires consideration at
the hands of the court and I find that unfortunately the
company has not produced any documents regarding its
management, authority and power given to its Manager. I
feel an opportunity can be given and therefore, the order of
acquittal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the
court below for fresh consideration with an opportunity to both
sides to adduce further evidence in the form of oral and
documentary evidence in support of their respective
contentions. The parties are directed to appear before the
court below on 15.9.2009.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
cl