Babu Vs. Suresh

Babu vs Suresh

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 17, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/722578

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/722578
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.
Decided On: May 17, 2004
Case Number: Crl. A. No. 616 of 1996
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - He could have very well launched a complaint against the person who had drawn the cheque whether it is in his capacity as the proprietor of the firm or in personal capacity. 6. In such circumstances I am satisfied that Ext.

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Negotiable Insruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Babu

Advocate G.S. Reghunath,; R.S. Kalkurna,; Mohan Jacob George

Respondent

Suresh

Advocate Blaze K. Jose, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Negotiable Insruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138
Reported In: I(2005)BC604; [2004]122CompCas353(Ker); 2004(2)KLT837

Excerpt

- - he could have very well launched a complaint against the person who had drawn the cheque whether it is in his capacity as the proprietor of the firm or in personal capacity. 6. in such circumstances i am satisfied that ext......he had deposed before the court below that the account in question against which the cheque was drawn was maintained by m/s. suresh agencies of which c. suresh was the proprietor. the accused did not have a case before the court below that he was not the proprietor of the said firm. in terms of section 138 of the act, when a cheque is bounced, the person who issued it becomes liable for prosecution for the offence under the said provision. in such circumstances whether the cheque is issued by a business firm or not, the person who had drawn the cheque is liable under section 138.3. there was no liability on the part of the complaint/appellant to implead the business firm or its proprietor in that capacity. he could have very well launched a complaint against the person who had drawn the cheque whether it is in his capacity as the proprietor of the firm or in personal capacity.4. in such circumstances, the court below has erred, while dismissing the complaint holding that 'ext.pl cheque has not been issued by the accused in his personal capacity, towards the dues to be paid by him to the complainant'.5. with regard to the issuance of notice and filing of the complaint there was no dispute.6. in such circumstances i am satisfied that ext.pl cheque has been issued by the respondent/accused and that it has been dishonoured as deposed by pw2 for want of sufficient cash in the account. so the respondent/accused has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act. the judgment of the court below is therefore set aside and the accused/respondent is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of the act.accordingly, the respondent/accused is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 60,000/- out of which, if realised, rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to the appellant/ complainant. in case of default to pay the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

Full Judgment

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

1. The appellant has come up with this appeal when his complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been dismissed. The only reason for the dismissal is that the cheque in question, Ext.P1, was issued in respect of an account maintained by Suresh Agencies by its proprietor and not by the respondent C. Suresh. Therefore, according to the Court below the appellant/complainant ought to have filed a complaint against the firm and its proprietor and not against its proprietor in his personal capacity.

2. PW2 is the Bank Manager. He had deposed before the Court below that the account in question against which the cheque was drawn was maintained by M/s. Suresh Agencies of which C. Suresh was the proprietor. The accused did not have a case before the Court below that he was not the proprietor of the said firm. In terms of Section 138 of the Act, when a cheque is bounced, the person who issued it becomes liable for prosecution for the offence under the said provision. In such circumstances whether the cheque is issued by a business firm or not, the person who had drawn the cheque is liable under Section 138.

3. There was no liability on the part of the complaint/appellant to implead the business firm or its proprietor in that capacity. He could have very well launched a complaint against the person who had drawn the cheque whether it is in his capacity as the proprietor of the firm or in personal capacity.

4. In such circumstances, the Court below has erred, while dismissing the complaint holding that 'Ext.Pl cheque has not been issued by the accused in his personal capacity, towards the dues to be paid by him to the complainant'.

5. With Regard to the issuance of notice and filing of the complaint there was no dispute.

6. In such circumstances I am satisfied that Ext.Pl cheque has been issued by the respondent/accused and that it has been dishonoured as deposed by PW2 for want of sufficient cash in the account. So the respondent/accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment of the Court below is therefore set aside and the accused/respondent is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.

Accordingly, the respondent/accused is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60,000/- out of which, if realised, Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to the appellant/ complainant. In case of default to pay the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2004 Same Parties Babu vs Suresh Same Subject Civil Same Judge K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. Acts & Sections Negotiable Insruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138

Civil