Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.68 seconds)
Documents citing V. Muralidharan vs V.A. Kumaran on 5 July, 2016

K.S.Rajesh vs K.M.Basheer on 25 May, 2017

So the above said later judgment rendered on 5/07/2016 by the Crl.R.P.No.600 of 2017 13 learned Single Judge in Muralidharan's case reported in 2016 (3)KHC 845 does not reflect the correct legal position, to the limited extent that Sec.138 offence is not attracted, where the bank account is closed prior to the drawal of the cheque, inasmuch as it has not reckoned the earlier judgments of the Division Bench and that of the learned Single Judge referred to hereinabove, on the said point. In this view of the matter, this Court is constrained to overrule the above said contentions raised by Sri. Carlton Thomas, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner(accused), that offence under Sec.138 of the NI Act is not made out in the facts of this case.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - A Thomas - Full Document

Boralingegowda vs Ramesh on 16 April, 2024

20. No doubt, the accused do not dispute the disputed cheque pertains to him and so also, the signature appearing therein pertains to him, but merely the accused admitting the disputed cheque and the signature appearing therein belongs to him does not permit the complainant to say that, he has established his case by placing reliance 25 C.C.No.7075/2019 on the presumption, more particularly when the accused has disputed the very case of the complainant that, he had raised the loan of Rs.20,000/- in the year 2003 and that, he had issued the disputed cheque and promissory note at Ex.P.1 & P4 in the year 2003. No doubt, the accused has not initiated any complaint against the complainant or has demanded for the return of the security documents in writing, but when the very endorsement issued by the bank at Ex.P.3 would indicate that, the account is being closed, the very endorsement itself suffices that, the defense raised by the accused appears to be acceptable and having the complainant not established his case by placing the probable evidence, merely producing the Ex.P.1 and P4 would not give any inference to hold the disputed cheque is being issued towards the repayment of the loan amount of Rs.2 Lakhs. Perhaps, the accused has taken a specific defence right from the receipt of the legal notice and its reply at Ex.P.14 which is really not rebutted by the complainant. Perhaps, the decision relied by the accused 26 C.C.No.7075/2019 reported in 2017 (1) DCR 305 of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in V. Muralidharan Vs. V.A. Kumaran., wherein it is held that, when the account is closed by the bank without the consent of the account holder and cheque is being dishonored on the same cause of action, then no offence makes out U/s. 138 of N.I. Act also aptly applies to the case in hand. In this back ground, when the complainant has utterly failed to establish the fact of loan transaction and also, the issuance of the disputed cheque was toward the discharge of the loan liability of Rs.2 Lakh, with due respect, I am of the considered view that the decisions relied by the complainant with regard to the presumption and rebuttable presumption in no way helps the complainant case. Absolutely, there is no probable evidence forthcoming to appreciate the complainant case with regard to the loan transaction and so also, with regard to the legally enforceable debt. Thereby taking into consideration that, the complainant utterly failed to establish his case by placing the probable evidence, I do 27 C.C.No.7075/2019 not find any ground to hold that, the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I.Act. Having, the accused rebutted the presumption available under law, point no.1 is answered in the Negative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pavithran vs Retnakaran on 27 September, 2018

7. The facts in Muralidharan (supra) are different from the facts in the present case and in the said circumstances, the decision of Muralidharan (supra) has no Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 174 of 2012 -6- application at all to the case in hand. In this case, it is in the evidence that the amount was borrowed by the revision petitioner during October 2004 and a post-dated cheque was issued on the same date with date 19.11.2004. It is seen in the endorsement on the back side of Ext.P1 cheque that the cheque was presented before the bank of the complainant on 23.11.2004. However, the said cheque was returned by the bank of the revision petitioner only on 9.12.2004. The account was closed and transferred on 26.10.2004. This would show that even at the time of borrowing the amount, the revision petitioner was aware of the fact that the account was closed. It is settled law that once the account is closed, there is no amount in the account to honour the cheque. Eventhough the revision petitioner had a contention that the revision petitioner had borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/- from PW2 and at the time of borrowing the said amount, the revision petitioner entrusted a blank signed cheque with PW2, who in turn handed over the said cheque to PW1 and thereafter, PW1 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 174 of 2012 -7- mis-utlised the said cheque to file the present complaint, there is absolutely no evidence before the court to show that the said contention of the revision petitioner is probable. Ext.P3 is the decree and Ext.P4 is the judgment in respect of the said cheque, which would also show that the contention of the revision petitioner was turned down by the civil court. It is true that the judgment of the civil court is relevant only within the sphere of Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - B P Kumar - Full Document

Revision vs By Advs on 23 January, 2020

In view of the above, this court is of the view that the facts and circumstances alleged in this case are similar to the facts decided in Muralidharan's case (supra). Hence it is just and proper to direct the trial court to have recourse to the provisions under Sections 190(1)(a) and Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2885 OF 2003 9 section 200 Cr.P.C and to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law and take cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the original complaint dated 29.01.1998, in case the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.S.Harish Kumar Shetty vs Lakshmana M.Shettigar on 29 July, 2016

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that even in such a case the cheque was dishonoured with the dictum "funds insufficient". It is argued that had there been a valid closure of the account, even prior to the dishonour of the cheque, the cheque would have been dishonoured with the dictum "account closed". PW2 bank official was examined. He also admitted that the account was closed on 04.01.2000. It is true that in such case also a banker can return the cheque as bounced with a dictum that there is no sufficient balance amount in the account of the accused. It is also a case wherein there is no amount at all. Crl.A.239/2009 : 6 : Therefore, by the mere dishonour of the cheque with the dictum that there was no sufficient funds in the account, it will not invite an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in a case wherein the account was closed by the accused, and even then he manages to issue a cheque after the closure of the account. This Court had occasion to deal with the said question in Muralidharan v. Kumaran [2016 (3) KLT 315]. In such a context, an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be attracted. Matters being so, there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - B K Pasha - Full Document
1