Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.VENUGOPALAN versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.VENUGOPALAN v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl L P No. 656 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 2882 (8 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl L P No. 656 of 2006()

1. A.VENUGOPALAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. K.GOPAKUMAR,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.M.PREM

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

Dated :08/12/2006

O R D E R

K. THANKAPPAN, J. Crl. L.P.No.656 OF 2006

Dated this the 8th day of December, 2006.

O R D E R

Petitioner is the complainant in S.T.No.103/2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-VII, Thiruvananthapuram. It is alleged in the complaint that the 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P1 cheque in favour of the petitioner in discharge of a debt of Rs.2,50,000/=. On presentation of the cheque for encashment, it is dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of fund with the account of the 2nd respondent. Hence, the complaint filed after completing the statutory requirements. To prove the case against the 2nd respondent, the complainant himself was examined as PW1 and relied on Exts.P1 to P7. On closing the prosecution evidence, the 2nd respondent was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Denying the allegation levelled against the 2nd respondent he stated that he had never borrowed Rs.2,50,000/= from the petitioner/complainant as alleged in the complaint, at the same time, he admits that he had received an amount of CRL.L.P.NO.656/2006 2 Rs.30,000/= for and on behalf of DW1. To prove this case, the 2nd respondent was examined himself as DW2 and got examined the other witness, DW1, who accepted Rs.30,000/= from the complainant. It is proved before the court that the amount claimed by the petitioner is incorrect. Relying on the evidence on behalf of the respondent, the trial court found that the case set up by the petitioner in the complaint is not proved against the respondent. In the above circumstances, the trial court on following the dictum laid down in the judgment of this Court reported in Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala (2006 (3) KLT 401) held that the petitioner failed to discharge his burden that there was a transaction between himself and the 2nd respondent so as to issue Ext.P1 cheque in favour of the petitioner. On considering these aspects and on hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the judgment of the trial court requires no reconsideration by this CRL.L.P.NO.656/2006 3 Court. Consequently, the leave application stands dismissed as meritless.

K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.

cl


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.