IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL A No. 548 of 1998()
1. VALAYIL HAMEED
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.SAJIDA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.VATHSALAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :18/06/2007
O R D E R
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
---------------------------------------------
Crl.A.No.548 of 1998
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2007
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.131/95 with
respect to the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
2. The prosecution case is that the accused towards
discharge of liability issued the impugned cheque for Rs.40,000/-
drawn on Thalassery Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. and that the
cheque when presented got bounced as the accused issued stop
payment order. All the same, there was no sufficient funds in the
account of the accused nor was the amount paid despite notice
received.
3. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted the
testimony of PWs’ 1 and 2 and Exts. P1 to P7. The defence
examined are DWs’ 1 and 2 and got marked Exts. D1 and D2.
PW1 who is the power of attorney holder and the brother of the
complainant has testified as to the alleged borrowal. He has
stated that he was present when the amount was borrowed. He
CRA 548/98 Page numbers
has also proved Exts. P1 to P6 documents as to the receipt of
dishonour memo, lawyer notice sent, postal receipt and postal
acknowledgment. PW2, the bank manager, has proved Ext. P7
ledger extract of the account of the accused which showed that
there was no sufficient funds in the account of the accused.
4. The court below has relied on the evidence of DWs’ 1
and 2 to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the
offence alleged. DW1 is an advocate practicing at Thalassery
who was the junior of the advocate appearing for the accused at
the time. Subsequently the particular advocate avoided the
vakalath of the accused. The evidence of DW1 who was
representing the accused is that on 11.11.1996 the accused
handed over a letter to him allegedly written by the complainant
wherein the complainant had threatened her that she should see
that the amount due from her father is paid back and in case of
default, the matter will be informed to her husband and he will
see that her entire family is ruined. DW1 has deposed that the
complainant at the time when he was reading the letter grabbed
the same from his hands and swallowed it. He has filed a
complaint before the police. Ext. D1 is the cover of the letter
CRA 548/98 Page numbers
addressed to the accused from the complainant. DW2, the Sub
Inspector of Police, has proved Ext. D1 and was deposed that the
matter was enquired into and that the complainant was
summoned and issued and the matter was closed. The court
below found from the evidence of DW1 and DW2 that the
evidence of complainant as to the liability due from the accused
has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. In the
circumstances, I find that the decision of the court below is
supported by proper reasons. There is no grounds to interfere.
The appeal is dismissed.
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
csl