As per the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must specifically allege the nature of the debt or liability u/s 138

Last updated: 10 April 2021

Save Share

Quick Summary

The Kerala High Court has ruled that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complainant must clearly state the specific nature of the debt or liability when filing a complaint regarding a dishonoured cheque. This ruling clarifies conflicting previous opinions and ensures proper procedure is followed in such cases.

Court :
Kerala High court

Brief :
This Appeal is filed against the order of acquittal inCriminal Appeal No.17/2002 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The first appellate court reversed the conviction and sentence passed under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter 'the Act') and acquitted the respondent (hereinafter 'the accused').

Citation :
CRL.A.No.41 OF 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942
CRL.A.No.41 OF 2005

CRA 17/2002 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE
Crl.L.P. 842/2004 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT

K.BASHEER
ANADATHIL,OPP.POOVANNUR MASJID, RAMANATTUKARA,,
KOZHIKODE.

BY ADVS.
SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN
SRI.S.K.SAJU
SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

RESPONDENTS

1 C.K.USMAN KOYA
S/O LATE ALASSAN,O.K. HOUSE, RAMANATTUKARA,
KOZHIKODE.

2 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ

OTHER PRESENT:

SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-02-2021, THE COURT ON 17-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated : 17th March, 2021

1. This Appeal is filed against the order of acquittal inCriminal Appeal No.17/2002 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The first appellate court reversed the conviction and sentence passed under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter 'the Act') and acquitted the respondent (hereinafter 'the accused'). A learned Single Judge havingcome across conflicting opinions in Divakaran v. State ofKerala (2016 (4) KLT 233) and Surendra Das B. v.State of Kerala (2019 (2) KLT 895), the case wasreferred for resolution of conflict to the Division Bench.

2. The case of the appellant (hereinafter 'the complainant') is that accused owed an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to thecomplainant and in discharge of the liability, issued Ext.P1 cheque.

To know more in details find the attachment file