MOHEMMED ALI K Vs. M P SALIM
LAWS(SC)-2014-9-160
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on
September 12,2014
Mohemmed Ali K
Appellant
VERSUS
M P Salim
Respondents
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 8th March, 2011 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRL.A. No. 171 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter referred to as theN.I. Act') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakh) to the complainant M.P. Salim.
(2.)The complainant filed complaint against the appellant for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. As per the allegation in the complaint the accused appellant borrowed Rs. 2,00,000 from the complainant on 30th September, 2000. The accused demanded the said sum from the complainant for the purpose of repaying the debt which he had incurred to another person. At the time of borrowing of the money, the accused promised to pay back the same to the complainant by selling his mother's property and house within a month. However, on 4th November, 2000 when the complainant demanded to pay the amount, instead of making the payment in cash, the accused issued the cheque (Ex. P1) drawn on his account for Rs. 2,00,000. The cheque was presented to the bank but it was returned stating "insufficient funds". The complainant's lawyer thereafter issued notice calling upon the accused to repay the amount within 15 days but the accused failed to repay the amount. Thereafter the complainant lodged the complaint.
(3.)During the prosecution case, the complainant himself examined as PW 1 and marked Ext. P1 to P10. The accused also examined DW1 on his side. The trial court analysed the evidence adduced by both the sides and held thus:
"It seems that the entire family of PW1 and Rukhiya kept a huge amount ready to lend to the accused. Strange indeed. It is also in evidence that the amount shown in all those cheques is also Rs. 2,00,000 each. That also would only probilise the case put forward by the accused and would make the case forward by the complaint further suspicious."
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 8th March, 2011 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRL.A. No. 171 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter referred to as theN.I. Act') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakh) to the complainant M.P. Salim.
(2.)The complainant filed complaint against the appellant for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. As per the allegation in the complaint the accused appellant borrowed Rs. 2,00,000 from the complainant on 30th September, 2000. The accused demanded the said sum from the complainant for the purpose of repaying the debt which he had incurred to another person. At the time of borrowing of the money, the accused promised to pay back the same to the complainant by selling his mother's property and house within a month. However, on 4th November, 2000 when the complainant demanded to pay the amount, instead of making the payment in cash, the accused issued the cheque (Ex. P1) drawn on his account for Rs. 2,00,000. The cheque was presented to the bank but it was returned stating "insufficient funds". The complainant's lawyer thereafter issued notice calling upon the accused to repay the amount within 15 days but the accused failed to repay the amount. Thereafter the complainant lodged the complaint.
(3.)During the prosecution case, the complainant himself examined as PW 1 and marked Ext. P1 to P10. The accused also examined DW1 on his side. The trial court analysed the evidence adduced by both the sides and held thus:
"It seems that the entire family of PW1 and Rukhiya kept a huge amount ready to lend to the accused. Strange indeed. It is also in evidence that the amount shown in all those cheques is also Rs. 2,00,000 each. That also would only probilise the case put forward by the accused and would make the case forward by the complaint further suspicious."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.