Tenny Jose vs Managing Partner, New Metalised Agency

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ker) 3136

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JOHNSON JOHN
Tenny Jose – Appellant
Versus
Managing Partner, New Metalised Agency – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Johnson P. John
For the Respondent: M.S. Breeze

JUDGMENT :

JOHNSON JOHN, J.

1. This appeal by the complainant is against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I Act’ for short).

2. As per the complaint, the accused purchased goods from the company in which the complainant is the Managing Director and towards payment of the amount due, the accused issued cheque dated 01.12.1997 for Rs.1,39,285.50.

3. When the complainant presented the cheque for collection, the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused and in spite of issuance of statutory notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount to the complainant.

4. Before the trial court, from the side of the complainant, PW1 examined and Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked and no evidence adduced from the side of the accused.

5. After hearing both sides and analysing the evidence, the trial court found that there is no valid notice as contemplated under Section 138 (b) of the N.I Act and therefore, the complainant has not succeeded in proving the offence under of the N.I. Act against the accused and hence, the accused was acquitted.

6. Heard Sri. Johnson P. John, the learned counsel for the appell