Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos. 1842 and 1844 of 2014. Case: Pankajakshan Vs Sumesh. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos. 1842 and 1844 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Zubair Pulikkool, Adv. and For Respondents: N. Suresh, Public Prosecutor |
| Judges | K. Ramakrishnan, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 313, 357(1), 357(1)(b); Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 139 |
| Judgement Date | October 29, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Order:
K. Ramakrishnan, J.
-
Accused in S.T. No. 291/2011 and S.T. No. 160/2011 both on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyoli are the revision petitioner herein.
-
The cases before the court below were taken on file on the basis of separate private complaints filed by the first respondent herein as complainant against the revision petitioner in both the cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the Act).
-
The case of the complainant in both the cases was that the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of ` 2 lakhs and agreed to return the same within 11 months and in discharge of that liability, he had issued 6 cheques for ` 30,000/- each and one cheque for ` 20,000/- and later he had paid ` 20,000/- and got back the cheque for ` 20,000/-. The cheques dated 05.06.2011 and 05.07.2011, two cheques for ` 30,000/- each were presented and they were encashed. When other four cheques namely, Exts. P1, P2, P9 and P10 were presented for collection and same were dishonoured vide Exts. P3 and P11 dishonour memos. for the reason payment stopped by the drawer and the same was intimated to the complainant by his banker vide Exts. P4 and P12 intimation letters. The complainant issued Exts. P5 and P13 lawyer notices respectively vide Exts. P6 and P14 postal receipts and they were received by the revision petitioner evidenced by Exts. P7 and P15 postal acknowledgments. The revision petitioner sent Exts. P8 and P16 reply notices for the respective notices sent when the complainant issued notice intimating dishonour and demanding payment of these cheques. He had not paid the amount. So, he had committed the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act.
-
The complainant filed two separate complaints, one complaint in respect of Exts. P1 and P2 cheques and another complaint in respect of Exts. P9 and P10 cheques and they were taken on file as S.T. No. 160/2011 and S.T. No. 291/2011 respectively and in both these cases, the revision petitioner appeared before the court below and particulars of the offences were read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, on the basis of the application filed as Crl.M.P. No. 1333/2012 in S.T. No. 160/2011, joint trial was allowed and evidence was recorded in S.T. No. 160/2011. The complainant in both the cases was examined as P.W. 1 and the bank manager was examined as P.W. 2 and Exts. P1 to P16 and X1 to X3 series were marked on his side...
To continue reading
Request your trial