IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL A No. 1508 of 2006()
1. REV. KV.V.MATHAI,AGED 65,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.V.JOSE,AGED ABOUT 40,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.MANJU ANTONEY
For Respondent :SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN
Dated :12/03/2007
O R D E R
K.THANKAPPAN, J.
----------------------------------------------
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1508 OF 2006
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2007
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C.No.64 of 2005 on the
file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Alathur. The allegation
in the complaint was that the first respondent – accused committed offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. As per the complaint, Ext.P1 cheque for a sum of Rs.56,240/-
issued by the first respondent in favour of the appellant towards purchase
of rubber when presented to the bank for encashment was dishonoured for
want of sufficient funds in the account of the first respondent. After
complying with the statutory provisions, the appellant filed the complaint.
To prove the case against the first respondent, the appellant himself was
examined as PW.1 and Exts.P1 to P8 were produced. No oral or
documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the defence. After
closing the evidence of the complainant, the first respondent was
questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Denying the allegations levelled
CRL.APPEAL NO.1508/2006 2
against him, the first respondent stated that the Sub Inspector of Police,
Vadakkancherry had obtained from him by coercion a signed blank cheque
and that no amount was due from him to the appellant. No evidence was
adduced by the first respondent to substantiate his case. However,
considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the court below
acquitted the first respondent – accused on the ground that the appellant-
complainant failed to prove the case against the accused.
3. This Court heard counsel on either side. On perusing the entire
records and appreciating the evidence, this Court is of the view that the
court below went wrong in acquitting the accused. The judgment of the
trial court is not based on any evidence and the liability of the first
respondent is clearly established by the appellant by adducing convincing
evidence. Hence, the impugned judgment is set aside.
4. Counsel on either side now submits that the matter can be settled
out of Court and for that purpose, they seek to post the case before the
Lok Adalat.
The Crl. Appeal is accordingly allowed. In the light of the
submission made by counsel on either side, the case shall be posted before
CRL.APPEAL NO.1508/2006 3
the Lok Adalat during the next sitting. It is made clear that if the matter is
not settled in the Lok Adalat, punishment shall be imposed on the first
respondent – accused as per law.
(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)
sp/