Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

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