2020 (12) TMI 510 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of accused - drawer of the cheque - trial court acquitted the accused mainly for the reason that the cheque is issued by one Kochumol - HELD THAT - The name of the accused is Kunjumol Renjith. The trial court considered this point in detail and found that the prosecution is not maintainable against Kunjumol Renjith because the drawer of the cheque is Kochumol. There is no reason to interfere with the well considered judgment of the trial court. The trial court found that the cheque was issued by one Kochumol and the prosecution is initiated against one Kunjumol Renjith. The statutory notice is also issued against Kunjumol Renjith. In such circumstances, the trial court is perfectly justified in acquitting the accused, who is Kunjumol Renjith. There is no reason to interfere with the acquittal order passed by the trial court. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Correct identification of the drawer of the cheque.
3. Burden of the complainant to initiate prosecution against the correct person.
4. Maintainability of the complaint against the accused.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the judgment in a case involving the dishonour of a cheque issued by the accused towards a liability. The trial court acquitted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding that the cheque was issued by Kochumol, not Kunjumol Renjith. The trial court emphasized that the complaint must be against the drawer of the cheque, which in this case was Kochumol Renjith, as per the bank account details. The trial court's decision was based on the mismatch between the accused's name and the actual drawer of the cheque, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

2. The trial court considered the defense's argument challenging the maintainability of the complaint due to the discrepancy in the account holder's name on the cheque. Despite the complainant's contention that the accused, Kunjumol Renjith, participated in the case proceedings, obtained bail, and contested the case, the trial court held that the complaint should have been filed against the correct person, i.e., the drawer of the cheque, Kochumol Renjith. The trial court emphasized the importance of initiating prosecution against the accurate individual responsible for the cheque issuance, as per the legal requirements of Section 138 of the Act.

3. The judgment highlighted the complainant's duty to correctly identify and prosecute the drawer of the cheque. Even though the accused participated in the legal proceedings, the trial court stressed that the complaint should have been directed towards the correct account holder, Kochumol Renjith. The court emphasized that the complainant's failure to target the appropriate individual, as per the bank records, resulted in the complaint's lack of maintainability against the accused, Kunjumol Renjith.

4. Upon reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's well-considered judgment. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision to acquit the accused, Kunjumol Renjith, due to the mismatch between the accused's name and the actual drawer of the cheque, Kochumol Renjith. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment in the case.