Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Mohandas vs P..Abdul Azeez on 30 June, 2011

Engineering Systems Limited & Ors. vs . A.B. Sugars Ltd.; 154 (2008) Delhi on 24 May, 2019

22. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused is not liable under the present complaint as entire payment has been made by the accused in the execution of the decree passed by Ld. Civil Court with respect to the cheque in question, holds no water. It is well settled that the complainant can file both civil and criminal case under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act simultaneously. Reliance is placed upon the case of Mohandas Vs. P. Abdul Azeez 2013 CRI. L.J (NOC) 313 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has observed, "It is well settled that enforcement of the liability through a civil court will not disentitle the aggrieved person from prosecuting the offender for the offence punishable under section 138 of the act. Both remedies may be simultaneously available and a civil suit can not deter the criminal cause of action. Successful termination of the civil litigation cannot ipso facto mean that the criminal prosecution cannot be pursued.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manathankandiyil Nani vs Kuniyil Gangadharan on 6 June, 2012

another case. If the decree or judgment in question is inter partes and if the existence of the said judgment is not disputed by either of the two parties, the said judgment or decree becomes all the more relevant. It need not be stressed that the decree or judgment assumes greater relevance and significance if the decree or judgment sought to be relied on is in respect of the same subject matter. In the case on hand admittedly the suit was in relation to the very same cheque (Ext.P1). It is beyond controversy that the trial court had passed the judgment in the case on April 26, 1995 holding the petitioner guilty of the offence. Nevertheless the complainant chose to institute the suit before the civil court on August 4, 1995. Apparently at that time the appeal preferred by the petitioner was pending before the Sessions Court. The civil court dismissed the suit on December 5, 1997. The Sessions court had disposed of the criminal appeal only on June 21st, 2001. However, it appears that the decree passed by the civil court was not brought to the notice of the Sessions S.A.231/1997.
Kerala High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 1 - P Bhavadasan - Full Document

John vs Madhavan on 9 February, 2012

8. Impact of a judgment of a civil case in criminal case on this aspect has been considered in detail by this Court in Mohandas V. P. Abdul Azeez and others (2011(3) KLT 41) and held that if the criminal case and the civil proceeding are for the same cause, judgment of the civil court would be relevant, if the conditions are satisfied. In the present case also the civil case is for the amount due under Ext.P1 cheque. It has been clearly found therein that there was material alteration in Ext.P1 and that the complainant has failed to prove the transaction. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decision and the judgment in O.S.No.1337/2001 of the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad, produced as Annexure-I in the application, I am of the view that the complainant has failed to prove the transaction. At the same time, version of the accused that he has issued a signed blank cheque in the year 1996, CRRP 323/2005 6 which was altered as 1998 and the complainant has created Ext.P1 has to be accepted. A perusal of Ext.P1 cheque also shows that year 1996 is clearly altered to 1998.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - P V Ali - Full Document

Mohanan vs Unknown on 30 January, 2012

11. A Single Bench of this court in Mohandas Vs Abdul Azzez (2011(3) KHC 41) relying on a decision of the Apex Court in Premsankar Vs Director of Police and other ( AIR 2002 SC 3372) held that the finding of the civil court that cheque is not supported by consideration would be relevant notwithstanding the fact that the criminal court has passed an order of conviction against the accused. The principles laid down in the above decision squarely apply to the fact of the present case. Admittedly, the said civil suit is with respect to the same transaction. It is clearly found therein that Exts. P1 and P2 cheques are not supported by consideration and that the complainant has not proved the transaction in question. The said findings are binding on the complaint in the present case also. That being so it has to be held that cheques Exts. P1 and P2 are not supported by consideration. Consequently the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Crl. R.P. No. 378 of 2002 6 Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, revision petition has to be allowed and conviction of the accused by the trial court which was confirmed in appeal and sentence imposed against him by the trial court which is modified by the lower appellate court have to be set aside and accused has to be acquitted.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - P V Ali - Full Document

Pavithran K.V vs Nalinakshan M.V on 19 January, 2017

3. When this matter has been taken up for hearing, the only argument advanced before this court by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that even though the revision petitioner produced the judgment and decree in O.S. No.218 of 2008 dated 30.9.2010 of the Sub Court, Thalassery in respect of the transaction involved in this Crl.R.P..1589/2013 : 2 : case before the appellate court, the appellate court did not consider the said judgment before passing the judgment impugned and in the said circumstances, the judgment impugned cannot be sustained in view of the decision in Mohandas v. Abdul Azeez [2011(3) KHC 41].
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - B P Kumar - Full Document
1