Title: SASIDHARAN A v STATE OF KERLA
Citation: CRL.A NO. 2489 OF 2006
Dated on: 9.1.2024
Corum: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
Facts of the case
In this present case the disagreement over a cheque dishonour that is covered by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is at the centre of the case of Sasidharan A. versus Vijayan Unnithan. The complainant, Sasidharan A, claims that a cheque dated December 23, 2003 was meant to cover Vijayan Unnithan’s obligation of Rs. 50 thousand. But when the check was presented, it bounced, which prompted legal proceedings. Sasidharan A. sent Vijayan Unnithan a demand notice, but the alleged amount went unmet, starting a legal dispute and subsequently the accused Unnithan was acquitted by Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. Undeterred Shashidharan chose to appeal the acquittal aiming to overturn the lower court’s decision.
Legal Provision
This is a case of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Section 138 provides that anu person found guilty of the offence of dishonour of cheque shall without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment of aa term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque or with both. Additionally, court referring to various precedents. In the present case the petitioner too was charged with section 138 of the NI act for dishonouring cheque
Court Analysis and Judgement
The court in this present matter held that the power of the trial court are as wide as that of the apex courts and every decision made by the trial court must not be interfered with. The trial court has equal power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the entire evidence brought by the parties and come to the conclusion by the facts established and the on the law relating. So as far as the law stands the view of the trial court can be said to be reasonably formed, regardless of weather the appellant court aggress with the same or not the view of the trial court can not be interdicted. The appellant court also held that the findings of the trial court in acquittal of the respondent is valid and must not be interfered with and dismissed the said petition.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Namitha Ramesh
