Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Cri. A. No. 67 of 2002. Case: Santosh Kumar Vs P. Jayakumar and Anr.. Kerala CEGAT & CESTAT High Court

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Case NumberCri. A. No. 67 of 2002
CounselFor Appellant: Dilip Mohan, Adv. and For Respondents: Babu S. Nair, P. M. Habeeb, PP.
JudgesK. A. Abdul Gafoor, J.
IssueNegotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) - Sections 138, 118, 139
Citation2006 CriLJ 4350
Judgement DateMay 30, 2006
CourtKerala CEGAT & CESTAT High Court

Judgment:

  1. The appellant/complainant did not succeed in his prosecution launched alleging offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent. According to him, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 40,000/-. When repayment demanded he issued Ext. P1 cheque on 20-3-1999. When it was presented to the Bank on the same day, it bounced. This was orally intimated to the accused, who told the complainant to wait for some more days. Therefore it was represented on 11-8-1999. But it bounched again on the ground that there was no sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused, the drawer of Ext. P1 cheque. Therefore, he issued a notice demanding payment of money covered by the chque on 14-8-1999 by registered post. This was returned as unclaimed in spite of service of intimation on the addressee as is revealed by Ext. P5 return letter. There upon the complaint was instituted. The accused has not denied drawal of cheque, Ext. P1 and the signature there on. His case is that he had been residing on the date mentioned in Ext. P1 and the period around it in Aluva and not in Manjeri where the cheque was issued. He had produced the ration card Ext. D1 to show that he had been taking ration...

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