Crl. A. No. 203 of 2001 (C). Case: K. O. Chacko Vs Kurian P. V. and Ors.. Kerala CEGAT & CESTAT High Court

Case NumberCrl. A. No. 203 of 2001 (C)
CounselFor Appellant: Bechu Kurian Thomas; Prakash Puthiadam; Markose Thomas, Advs. and For Respondents: Markose Thomas and Smt. Kochumol Koduvath, Advs. and P. M. Habeeb, P. P.
JudgesK. A. Abdul Gafoor, J.
IssueNegotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) - Section 138
Citation2006 CriLJ 4383
Judgement DateTuesday May 30, 2006
CourtKerala CEGAT & CESTAT High Court

Judgment:

  1. The complainant before the trial Court is the appellant herein. He filed a complaint against respondents 1 and 2 herein, alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Nagotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court acquitted the accused. Hence this appeal.

  2. Whether there was notice, in terms of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act, is the moot question involved in this case.

  3. Ext. P1 cheque issued by the accused bounced, when presented to the bank.This resulted in a notice, copy of which is produced as Ext. P3. But, the notice addressed to the accused returned back to the sender unclaimed. Ext. P5 series are the notices so returned. In the light of these facts, it is contended by the appellant that he had discharged the part of his duty in terms of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act, by making a demand in the notice addressed to on the accused persons, for repayment of the amount covered by the cheque-Ext. P1, which bounced for want of sufficient funds in the account maintained by the accused. The postman took the notice to the residence of the accused. They were absent. It was repeated on three days...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT