Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.K.SIVAKUMAR, S/O.KOTTUKKAL KUNJITTY versus C.V.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.CHERAMPARAMBIL

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.K.SIVAKUMAR, S/O.KOTTUKKAL KUNJITTY v. C.V.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.CHERAMPARAMBIL - Crl L P No. 169 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 5656 (19 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl L P No. 169 of 2007()

1. K.K.SIVAKUMAR, S/O.KOTTUKKAL KUNJITTY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. C.V.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.CHERAMPARAMBIL
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.SHAJI

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

Dated :19/03/2007

O R D E R

K. Thankappan, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.L.P. No. 169 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 19th day of March, 2007

O R D E R

This is a petition to special leave to appeal filed by the complainant in S.T.No.597/2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thrissur. In the complaint it is stated that the 1st respondent borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner and in discharge of the above debt, he issued a post dated cheque to the petitioner and when the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was bounced for want of sufficient funds in the account of the 1st respondent. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. After closing the evidence of the petitioner, the 1st respondent was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that there was no liability between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. He also stated that the cheque was presented for encashment after the expiry of the period and hence the cheque would not create any liability on him as per section 73 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. To substantiate his case, Exts.D1 to D3 were marked. After considering the evidence adduced on either side, the trial court found that the cheque had reached the bank of the accused after the expiry of its validity period Crl.LP 169/07 2 and hence no cause of action would arise on the basis of that cheque. Section 73 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a cheque must in order to charge any person to be presented within a reasonable time. It is proved that Ext.P2 cheque was presented by the petitioner after the expiry of its validity period. Hence, the conclusion arrived at by the trial court does not require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, leave to appeal is rejected. K. Thankappan, Judge. mn. Crl.LP 169/07 3

K.Thankappan,J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.l.P.No. 135 /2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ORDER

2-3-2007


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.