Kerala High Court
Tomichan T.V vs Veenus Agustine on 23 August, 2016
Author: B.Kemal Pasha
Bench: B.Kemal Pasha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/1ST BHADRA, 1938
CRL.A.No. 687 of 2009
----------------------------------
C.C.NO. 712/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
ERATTUPETTA
--------------------------------
APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT :
-------------------------------------------------
TOMICHAN T.V.,
THATTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALATHOOKADAVU P.O.,
THALAPPULAM VILLAGE.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR
SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED :
-------------------------------------------
1. VEENUS AGUSTINE,
S/O. AUGUSTINE, THAYYIL HOUSE, TEEKOY P.O.,
TEEKOY VILLAGE.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
ITS REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. MAYA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 23-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
================
Crl.A. No.687 of 2009
=======================
Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2016
JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Erattupetta in C.C.No.712/2006, the complainant before the court below has come up in appeal. The case before the court below is as a result of a private complaint filed by the appellant herein as complainant, against the 1st respondent herein as accused, alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the appellant, the cheque in question was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused as well as on the ground that the account was closed. It is the specific case of the appellant that the accused had deliberately closed the account in the bank. Crl.A. No.687 of 2009 2 The account was closed on 23.06.2004; whereas, the cheque was allegedly issued on 15.09.2006. In such case, going by the decision of this Court in Muralidharan.V. v. V.A.Kumaran and another [2016 (3) KHC 845], an offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act cannot be attracted. It was held by this Court that, in such case, an offence under Section 420, can be attracted.
2. When this appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to the appellant to withdraw from the appeal with liberty to initiate other proceedings. With liberty to the appellant to have recourse to other legal proceedings, in case such legal proceedings are maintainable, the appellant is permitted to withdraw from the appeal.
This appeal is therefore dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/-
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE stu //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE.
Crl.A. No.687 of 2009 3