Kerala High Court
K.K.R.Products And Marketing (P) Ltd vs Mr.Y.Pradeep on 29 September, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/29TH BHADRA, 1939
CRL.A.No. 1976 of 2011 ( )
---------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 912/2007 OF J.M.F.C.- III, ALUVA
DATED 29-09-2011
ORDER IN Crl.L.P. 1006/2011 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10-11-2011
APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------
K.K.R.PRODUCTS AND MARKETING (P) LTD.,
OKKAL P.O., KALADY-683 550,
REPRESENTED BY K.K.KARNAN, DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH
SMT.SMITHA GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE::
-------------------------------
1. MR.Y.PRADEEP, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
RURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY (RCDS), PUNNAKKAL,
ELAMAKKARA P.O., KOCHI-682 026.
2. MINI.K.NAIR, ADMINISTRATOR,
RURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY (RCDS), PUNNAKKAL,
ELAMAKKARA P.O., KOCHI-682 026.
3. RURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY(RCDS),
REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, PUNNAKKAL,
ELAMAKKARA P.O., KOCHI-682 026.
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682 031.
R1 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ALEX M. THOMBRA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-09-2017,
ALONG WITH CRA. 1977/2011 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BKA/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
--------------------------------------------------
Crl. Appeal Nos. 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979,
1980 & 1981 of 2011
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of September, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The appellant is a private limited company. It was the complainant in the above cases. Respondents 1 to 3 were the accused. The third respondent is a registered society. The first and second respondents are its Executive Secretary and Administrator respectively. In the complaint it was alleged that the appellant and the said respondents entered into an agreement whereby the former agreed to supply rice to the latter, who in turn undertook to pay the amount "against invoice indicating quantity supplied". In 2007 the appellant supplied various quantities of rice to the above respondents. In discharge of the liability they issued cheques marked in the cases. All the cheques were returned dishonoured as there was no sufficient fund in the account of respondents 1 to 3. In spite of demand by notice respondents 1 to 3 did not pay the amount. The learned magistrate acquitted respondents 1 to 3 mainly on three Crl. Appeal No. 1976/2011 & con. cases ..2..
grounds; (1) there was sufficient fund in the account of respondents 1 to 3; (2) the appellant failed to adduce any evidence to prove delivery of rice as claimed by it in the complaints; and (3) it failed to produce the documents which were allegedly in its custody to prove the transactions.
2.Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.
3.One of the grounds on which respondents 1 to 3 were acquitted is that there was no sufficient fund in the account of the society to honour the cheques. Notwithstanding the memo issued by the bank before which the cheques were presented that there was no sufficient fund in the account, the learned magistrate held that there was sufficient fund in the account on the basis of Ext.D4 copy of statement of the bank account produced by the defence. It is not revealed in the judgment how the defence documents were marked. No one was examined to prove them. A document cannot prove itself. It must be proved through a process known to law. Mere marking of a Crl. Appeal No. 1976/2011 & con. cases ..3..
document will not prove its contents. Exts.D1 to D4 marked on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 were not actually proved. The learned magistrate was wrong in acting upon Ext.D4 statement of accounts to hold that there was sufficient fund in the account of the society to honour the cheques.
4.The foundation for the transactions between the parties is said to be an agreement entered into between them. The transactions allegedly took place in 2007. In his examination, PW1, a Director of the appellant company, who was examined on its behalf, stated that there was an agreement between the parties for the year 2005-06, but, it was not renewed. It means that there was no agreement between the parties with regard to the period during which the transactions alleged in the complaint took place. This makes improbable the allegation of the appellant that it supplied rice to respondents 1 to 3 pursuant to a agreement entered into between them.
5.In Kundan Lal Rallaram v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay [AIR 1961 SC 1316] which was followed in M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala & Another [AIR 2006 SC 3366] and Rangappa v. Crl. Appeal No. 1976/2011 & con. cases ..4..
Mohan [AIR 2010 SC 1898], the Supreme Court held that a presumption may be rebutted by probabilities. The Court held that if a party who claims to be in possession of evidence, which would prove his case, fails to produce it before the court, an adverse inference shall be taken against him.
6.The appellant relies on the invoices marked in the case to prove delivery of rice to respondents 1 to 3. It does not contain acknowledgment of respondents 1 to 3 or any other person of the society. They are only unilateral documents, which are not sufficient to prove sale of rice to respondents 1 to 3 or receipt of rice by them. When PW1 was asked for an explanation for the non-production of delivery note or lorry receipt, his answer was that they were not produced because invoices were produced. To put it differently, he has no case that they were not produced not because they were not available. Later he expressed his willingness to produce the documents proving the transactions between the parties. But, they were not produced. The inference is that if they are produced, they would disprove the appellant's case. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that Crl. Appeal No. 1976/2011 & con. cases ..5..
the appellant supplied rice to respondents 1 to 3 as alleged in the complaints.
7.The defence version is that the cheques were issued as security for the transactions they had with the appellant during the year 2005-06.
8.The facts discussed above compel me to hold that the appellant's case that there was an agreement between the parties to supply rice in 2007 and it supplied rice to them in 2007 as alleged in the complaints has not been proved. It follows that the court cannot hold that the cheques relied on by the appellant were issued to discharge the liability alleged by it. The learned magistrate was fully justified in acquitting respondents 1 to 3. The finding cannot be disturbed.
In the result, these appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE bka/-