Sunil Nath vs K.G.Haridas on 1 September, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL.A.No. 655 of 2005()


1. SUNIL NATH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.G.HARIDAS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. MURALI KRISHNA,

3. M/S. M & H MEDIA,

4. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.A.R.USHA

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :01/09/2008

 O R D E R
                             V.GIRI, J.
                          ==============
                 Criminal Appeal No. 655 of 2005
                      ====================
            Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008.

                          J U D G M E N T

The complainant in C.C.No.118/2003 on the files of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam is the appellant

herein. The complaint was filed alleging that the accused had

issued Ext.P19 cheque for an amount of Rs.12,000/- on

15.11.1998 which was dishonoured on 3.2.1999 as evidenced by

Ext.P29 dishonour memo. Dishonour was communicated to the

complainant on 6.2.1999. Cheque amount was demanded as

Ext.P30 telegram dated 12.2.1999. The accused had fifteen days

time to pay the amount. But the complaint, pursuant to Ext.P19

cheque, seems to have been filed on 26.2.1999. Essentially, on

this basis, the accused has been acquitted on the ground that the

complaint was a premature one.

2. It may be noted that the stand taken by the accused

was one of the denial of any transaction as alleged by the

complainant. According to the accused, the cheque issued was a

blank one and that was issued as a security and not for

Criminal Appeal No. 655 of 2005 2

discharging any liability. Thus, the court below acquitted the

accused under Section 255(i) Cr.P.C., finding that the complaint

was premature. Hence the appeal.

3. There is no representation on behalf of the

complainant or on behalf of the accused. I have perused the

order of the court below. I am in agreement with the court below

that the complaint should have been filed on or after 27.2.1999,

with giving the accused, full fifteen days to pay the amount. In

the facts and circumstances of the case, there was nothing to

show that an offence was committed in terms of 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

In the result, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of

acquittal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

V.GIRI, JUDGE

bkn/-