UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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