SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 69

A. BADHARUDEEN
Padma Conductors Pvt. Ltd. , Represented By Its Director Rajkumar Nair – Appellant
Versus
MIRC Electronics, Represented By Its Branch Accountant – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri. V.A. Johnson (Varikkappallil).
For the Respondents: Sri. Jacob Chacko, Sr. Public Prosecutor Shri K. Denny Devassy.

Judgement Key Points

अदालत ने स्पष्ट किया कि धारा 138 के तहत अभियोग में अभियोगकर्ता का प्रथम दायित्व है कि वह लेनदेन और चेक के निष्पादन को साबित करे (!) . इस मामले में, शाखा लेखाकार द्वारा प्रस्तुत साक्ष्य, जिसके पास सीधे लेनदेन या चेक के निष्पादन का ज्ञान नहीं था, उसे पर्याप्त नहीं माना गया ताकि वह इस दायित्व को पूरा कर सके (!) . अदालत ने कहा कि बिना सीधे ज्ञान के व्यक्ति का साक्ष्य लेनदेन और चेक के निष्पादन को प्रमाणित करने के लिए पर्याप्त नहीं हो सकता (!) . इस प्रकार, साक्ष्य की पर्याप्तता का आकलन करते समय यह देखा जाना चाहिए कि साक्ष्य देने वाला व्यक्ति लेनदेन का प्रत्यक्ष साक्षी हो या नहीं, क्योंकि इससे ही कानून के अनुसार लेनदेन और चेक के निष्पादन का प्रमाण स्थापित होता है (!) .


ORDER :

This Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioners are accused Nos.1,2 and 6 in C.C.No.1168/2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate No.III, Palakkad. The revision petitioners assail judgment dated 05.10.2013 in the above case as well as the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.331/2013 before the Additional Sessions Court-V, Palakkad. The respondents herein are the complainant as well as the State of Kerala.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents in detail. Perused the lower court records.

3. I shall refer the parties in this Revision Petition as `complainant' and 'accused' for convenience.

4. The complainant lodged complaint alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (`N.I Act' for short) contending that the complainant used to supply electrical equipments and products to the 6th accused on behalf of accused 1 to 5 and the 1st accused issued cheque for Rs.7,83,929.50 dated 18.04.2009 drawn on South Indian Bank signed by the 2nd accused as the Director of the 1st accused for di

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top