High Court Kerala High Court

Ibrahimkutty vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 20 March, 2007

Kerala High Court
Ibrahimkutty vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 20 March, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 786 of 2007()


1. IBRAHIMKUTTY, THONDALIL VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. B.VIJAYAKUMAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :20/03/2007

 O R D E R
                                    R. BASANT, J.

                          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                           Crl.M.C.No. 786  of   2007

                          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                    Dated this the 20th day of   March, 2007


                                       O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section

138 of the N.I. Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs.

Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a private complaint filed

by the second respondent/complainant.

2. The petitioner has come to this Court to complain that the

alleged loan transaction of Rs.7 lakhs offends the provisions of

Section 269(ss) of the Income Tax Act and such infraction is

punishable. Therefore he contends that the liability, to discharge

which the cheque has allegedly been issued, is not a legally

enforcible debt/liability. I do not want to make any final

pronouncement on the question now. I am satisfied that it is for the

petitioner to raise this contention before the learned Magistrate in the

course of trial and seek appropriate orders.

3. In my anxiety to ensure that the petitioner does not lose his

right to raise all his appropriate contentions before the trial court, I do

not want to express any final opinion on this question. Whether the

Crl.M.C.No. 786 of 2007

2

transaction is valid and whether because of the infraction of proceedings

evidence about such transaction can be adduced or accepted are all

questions that the petitioner must raise before the learned Magistrate at

appropriate stage.

3. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations.

(R. BASANT)

Judge

tm