Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)
Pavithran vs Retnakaran on 27 September, 2018 cites

V. Muralidharan vs V.A. Kumaran on 5 July, 2016

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 11 - Cited by 5 - B K Pasha - Full Document
1