Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court

High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour Case, Emphasizes Need for Proof of Insufficiency of Funds

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment today, the High Court of Kerala, presided over by the Honorable Mr. Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, upheld the acquittal of Vijayan Unnithan in a case involving the dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant, Sasidharan A., had challenged the acquittal, alleging that Unnithan had issued a cheque that was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

The court's decision hinged on the critical legal principle of proving insufficiency of funds in cheque dishonour cases. Justice Ajithkumar stated, "Here, the appellant failed to prove the fact that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds with the account of the 1st respondent."

In the original trial, the cheque, bearing the date 23.12.2003, was returned with the remark 'referred to drawer,' which does not explicitly indicate insufficiency of funds. The appellant's counsel argued that the demand notice's assertion of insufficiency of funds should have been sufficient for conviction. However, the court found this evidence lacking in establishing the necessary fact of insufficient funds in the respondent's account.

Citing precedents from higher courts, including the Apex Court's rulings in Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat and Rajan v. Sharafudheen, Justice Ajithkumar underscored the necessity of concrete proof in such cases. "Sufficiency of funds is a question of fact which is to be proved by adducing reliable evidence," he observed.

The judgment also delved into the principles governing appeals against acquittal, referencing several Supreme Court decisions. The court emphasized that while appellate courts have wide powers, they should refrain from interfering with a trial court's verdict if it is reasonable and based on evidence.

Date of Judgment: 09 January 2024

SASIDHARAN  VS  THE STATE OF KERALA

 

Latest Legal News