Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta 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

 

Similar News