Back
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
Kunjamma Cheriyan – Appellant
Versus
Soloman. Meenathethil Veedu – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves an appeal against an acquittal in a criminal matter under the Negotiable Instruments Act, specifically Section 138, concerning a cheque bounce incident (!) .
The appellant alleged that the respondent issued a cheque for Rs. 11,775 in consideration of a loan, which bounced due to insufficient funds, and statutory notice was not responded to (!) .
The respondent claimed the cheque was a blank one being misused by the complainant and argued there was material alteration in the cheque, including modifications in the amount written in words and figures, which affected the validity of the cheque (!) (!) .
The trial court found that there was a material alteration in the cheque, particularly in the amount written in words and figures, which was not attested by the drawer, leading to the conclusion that no offence under Section 138 was made out (!) (!) .
The court noted that the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act, which favors the complainant, could not be rebutted by the accused due to the evidence of material alteration and the absence of proper attestation (!) (!) .
The court also considered the interpretation of Section 18 of the N.I. Act, which states that the banker will honor a cheque based on the amount written in words, and found that the alterations in the cheque's amount and the payee's name constituted substantial material alterations, justifying the conclusion that the cheque was not valid (!) (!) .
The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, affirming that the conclusion of material alteration was justified, and accordingly dismissed the appeal (!) .
Overall, the court's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant sections of the N.I. Act and the evidence indicating material alteration in the cheque, leading to the conclusion that the offence under Section 138 was not established (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or clarification on any specific aspect.
The appellant/complainant initiated prosecution against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This is ended in acquittal. Therefore, this appeal.
2. The case put forth by the complainant was that a cheque for an amount of rs.11.775/- issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in consideration of the amount taken as loan by him bounced. Statutory notice did not result in payment. Therefore, the accused committed ofence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The case of the accused was that there was some transaction between him and one Maman, the brother of the husband of the complainant and towards the amounts due to him the cheque was issued. It was a blank cheque. That cheque was being made use of by the complainant. It was not supported by consideration. More over, there was material alteration in the cheque. The amount written in words and the name of the payee had been written admittedly by the complainant herself. A perusal of the cheque will further reveal that there were certain corrections where the amount in words had been written. That also will amount to material alteration of the cheque
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
