Kerala High Court
N.I.Sreedharan vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2025
2025:KER:52434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2025/25TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 2686 OF 2008
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.11.2008 IN
Crl.L.P. NO.1715 OF 2008 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.07.2008 IN
ST NO.2548 OF 2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS ,KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT:
N.I.SREEDHARAN, KOTHALA P.O.,
KOOROPPADA VILLAGE,, KOTTAYAM TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
SRI.R.REJI
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 M.N. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, MALIACKAL HOUSE,
VAZHOOR EAST P.O., VAZHOOR.
BY ADV SHRI.C.S.MANILAL
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.07.2025, THE COURT ON 16.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.2686 OF 2008 :2: 2025:KER:52434
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the complainant in S.T.
No.2548/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, Kottayam, challenging the judgment of acquittal
rendered in the said case, dated 16.07.2008, alleging
commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "N.I. Act"). For the sake of
clarity and convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to
hereafter as the complainant and the accused.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows;
Towards the discharge of a legally enforceable debt of
Rs.50,000/-, the accused issued a cheque in favour of the
complainant drawn on the account maintained by the accused
with Vazhoor Farmers' Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. for the
said amount. When the complainant sent the said cheque for
collection through his account maintained at Service Co-operative
Bank Ltd. Koorappada branch, the same was returned
dishonored, stating the reason 'not arranged for'. Thereafter, the
complainant issued a notice to the accused intimating the
dishonor of the cheque and demanding the payment of the
Crl.A.2686 OF 2008 :3: 2025:KER:52434
cheque amount. Though the said notice was duly served, the
accused neither made the payment nor issued any reply. Hence,
the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable
under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
3. Before the trial court, the complainant was examined
as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of the
defence, the accused got himself examined as DW1 and marked
Ext.D1.
4. After consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court
by judgment dated 16.07.2008, found the accused not guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, and
accordingly acquitted him. Aggrieved by the said finding and
order of acquittal, the complainant has preferred the present
appeal.
5. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the trial court acquitted the accused in a hasty and
unjustified manner without properly appreciating the facts and
Crl.A.2686 OF 2008 :4: 2025:KER:52434
evidence brought on record. According to the counsel, as the
execution of Ext.P1 cheque was duly proved, the trial court ought
to have found that the complainant had succeeded in establishing
the basic facts to draw a presumption under Section 139 of the
N.I. Act. The learned counsel urged that since the accused
miserably failed to rebut the said statutory presumption, he is
liable to be found guilty and convicted. In response, the learned
counsel for the respondent/accused submitted that the
complainant miserably failed to prove his case. According to the
counsel, the complainant failed to discharge his initial burden to
prove the transaction and execution of the cheque, and hence
the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act
cannot be invoked in his favour. According to the learned
counsel, the trial court correctly appreciated the facts and
evidence brought on record and rightly acquitted the accused.
7. Before delving into a discussion regarding the scope of
interference in the present appeal, it is pertinent to note that the
legal yardsticks applicable to an appeal against acquittal are
different from those applicable to an appeal against conviction.
Ordinarily, an appellate court would not interfere with a judgment
Crl.A.2686 OF 2008 :5: 2025:KER:52434
of acquittal unless it is demonstrated that the trial court's view is
perverse, manifestly illegal, or grossly unjust, and that the only
possible conclusion on the basis of the evidence on record was
that the accused was guilty of the offence alleged. If two views
are possible on the basis of the evidence, and the trial court has
taken one such view leading to acquittal, the appellate court
would generally refrain from substituting its own view merely
because it might have arrived at a different conclusion. However,
that does not mean that the appellate court cannot reverse an
erroneous acquittal. More specifically, when the appreciation of
evidence by the trial court is patently erroneous or perverse or
runs contrary to the settled principles of law, and when the
evidence on record clearly establishes the guilt of the accused,
leaving no room for any other plausible conclusion, the appellate
court is well within its power to reverse the finding of acquittal
and convict the accused.
8. Now, while reverting to the case at hand, it can be seen
that in order to prove his case, the complainant got himself
examined as PW1. He filed an affidavit in lieu of chief
examination and reiterated the allegations set forth in the
Crl.A.2686 OF 2008 :6: 2025:KER:52434
complaint. However, during cross-examination, when a definite
question was put to him as to whether he attended the marriage
of the accused's daughter, he replied that he did not participate
as he was not on good terms with the accused at that time.
Moreover, he added that "പിണക്കത്തിലായ ശേഷം ഞങ്ങൾ തമ്മിൽ കൊടുക്കൽ
വാങ്ങലുകളോ ചെക്ക് കൈമാറലോ ഉണ്ടായിട്ടില്ല." [After the discord between us,
there was no give and take transaction, or there was no handing
over of any cheque]. Likewise, in response to another question,
PW1 replied that he is not remembering whether the marriage of
the accused's daughter was conducted on 28.05.2006. He
further stated that he was not invited to the betrothal and
reiterated that he was not on good terms with the accused prior
to that. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that when the
accused was examined was DW1, the certified copy of the
marriage certificate of his daughter was marked as Ext.D1. A
perusal of Ext.D1 reveals that the marriage of the accused's
daughter was conducted on 28.05.2006. As already stated, the
case of the complainant is that no money transaction or handing
over of any cheque occurred after he fell out of good terms with
the accused. However, in the affidavit filed in lieu of the chief
Crl.A.2686 OF 2008 :7: 2025:KER:52434
examination, what he stated is that the cheque in question was
issued by the accused on 15.07.2006, which is about one and a
half months after the marriage of the accused's daughter. This
assertion directly contradicts PW1's earlier version that there was
no money transaction or handing over of a cheque after he fell
out of good terms with the accused. In the light of the above
inconsistency, I have no hesitation in holding that the
complainant failed to prove his initial burden regarding the
transaction and execution of the cheque. In such cases, the
presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act would
not apply. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the
judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.
In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd
