Back
Sunil K. J. , S/o. Josna, Anil Bhavan, Vadakkumbhakom, Pullikkada, Kollam – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Key Points: - The payee or holder in due course must have authorization to accept the cheque on behalf of others to prosecute; without power of attorney or authorization, they cannot prosecute. (!) - For prosecution under Section 138, the complainant must be the payee or holder in due course and must have proper authorization from others to represent them; otherwise the complaint is not maintainable. (!) - Section 142 requires cognizance of an offense under Section 138 to be upon a complaint in writing made by the payee or holder in due course; authorization or evidence is needed to show representation of others. (!) - The case reflects that the complainant failed to prove that the cheque was drawn in discharge of any debt or liability of the complainant alone or that he had locus standi to pursue on behalf of others. (!) - The court held that there was no power of attorney or sufficient evidence authorizing the complainant to accept money on behalf of twelve others and prosecute the case. Consequently, acquittal was affirmed. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
The above appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No.386 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam.
2. The complaint was filed against the 2nd respondent herein for prosecuting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. [Hereinafter, the parties are mentioned according to their rank in the trial court].
3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The accused is a contractor attached to the Milma Dairy, Kollam. The complainant and 12 others were appointed by the accused for carrying out the work in the Milma Dairy. According to the complainant, the accused received an amount of Rs.20,000/-each from the complainant and the other employees on various occasions. According to the complainant, the amount of Rs.20,000/-received by the accused from him was on 25.11.1996. The complainant's case is that, the above amount was received by the accused as security for the job to be carried out by the complainant. It was agreed to repay the amount within one year of the completion of the work. It is the case of the complainant that, the accused also executed separate agreements in favour of the complainant and other employees to
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
