IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl L P No. 881 of 2007()
1. M/S INERIORS, REG.PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.KOVILAKAM RESIDENCY,
... Respondent
2. N.B.KRISHNA KURUP,
3. N.B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
4. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN
Dated :03/10/2007
O R D E R
K.THANKAPPAN, J.
----------------------------------------------
CRL. L.P. NO. 881 OF 2007
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2007
O R D E R
This petition for special leave to appeal is filed against the judgment
in S.T. No.843 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class
Magistrate’s Court (Marad Cases), Kozhikode.
2. The case of the petitioner – complainant was that Ext.P3 cheque
issued by the third accused – the third respondent herein, Partner of a
firm, in discharge of an amount of Rs.75,000/- due from the first
respondent – firm in connection with the interior furnishing work of a
newly constructed building when presented to the bank for encashment
was dishonoured on account of the stop payment memo issued by the
account holder. After serving notice on the accused, the complaint was
filed alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. To prove the case against the accused,
PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.P1 5o P14 were produced. On the
side of the defence, DW.1 was examined and Ext.D1 was produced. After
closing the evidence of the complainant, the accused were questioned
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the charge levelled against them.
The third accused stated that he had not issued the cheque in his capacity
CRL.L.P.NO.881/2007 2
as Partner of the firm. After considering the evidence adduced in the case,
the trial court found that the cheque was not drawn on the account
maintained by the first accused – firm, but it was drawn on the account
maintained by the third accused and that even the second accused –
Managing Parter of the firm was not a signatory to the cheque in question.
The trial court also found that as per the complaint, amount was due from
the first accused. The trial court, therefore, found that the petitioner –
complainant failed to prove that the first respondent committed offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the
light of the above finding, the trial court, acquitted the accused.
3. It is the duty of the complainant to prove that the cheque in
question was issued from the account maintained for and on behalf of the
firm and signed by the Managing Partner or other partners of the firm.
This having not been done, the finding of the trial court, which is based on
evidence, requires no interference.
The Crl. Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)
sp/
CRL.L.P.NO.881/2007 3
K. THANKAPPAN, J.
CRL.A. NO.
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER, 2007