9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could have been jointly tried, the cases have been tried separately and the appeals have also been disposed of separately. 2. In Crl.R.P.No.637 of 2017, the petitioner/accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.No.749 of 2012 as per the judgment dated 11.3.2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna. The trial court has sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months and the fine amount was directed to be disbursed to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. As per the impugned judgment dated 22.2.2017 of the appellate court (Court of Sessions Judge, Manjeri) in Crl.Appeal No.124 of 2014, the abovesaid conviction has been confirmed and the substantive sentence has been reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The fine amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the default sentence clause of simple imprisonment for six months has also been confirmed, etc. 3. In Crl.R.P.No.638 of 2017, the petitioner/accused has been convicted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused, in discharge of his liability, had issued three separate cheques, each of Rs.5,00,000/-, thus totaling to Rs.15,00,000/-, drawn from his account and payable in favour of the complainant and that the cheques when presented for encashment resulted in dishonour. There are no serious arguments from the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused that the complainant has fulfilled the necessary statutory formalities for initiation of the complaints in question. Therefore, the aspects in that regard need not be examined by this Court. However, the main arguments raised by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner are as follows : (i) The nature of the alleged business transactions between the accused and the complainant's husband as well as the dates on which the alleged transaction has taken place, which led to the alleged liability, the date on which the three cheques have been allegedly handed over by the accused to the complainant, etc. are conspicuously omitted to mention in the statutory demand notice, complaint as well as in the proof affidavit. Therefore, it is stated that the case of the complainant is liable to be thrown out and the accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaint, statutory demand notice and the proof affidavit are conspicuously silent as to the nature of the business transactions allegedly entered into between the complainant's husband and the accused, the dates and particulars of the transactions which led to the liability of Rs.15,00,000/- owed by the accused to the complainant's husband, the date on which the accused has allegedly handed over the three cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- each to the complainant, etc. 9. This Court in the decision in K.K.Divakaran v. State of Kerala reported in 2016 (4) KLT 233 has held that where neither the nature of the transaction nor the date of the transaction between the parties nor the details of handing over the cheque, etc. are disclosed in a complaint, it would amount to suppression of material and crucial facts relating to the alleged transaction and that such an artifice is used by certain litigants with the intention to develop a story after knowing the defence that may be set up by the opposite party and that the doors of a criminal court should be closed to such fortune seekers. Further that in a criminal case the accused should be informed before the trial not only of the nature of the offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is only to be held that such non disclosure and suppression of crucial material facts in the complaint regarding the nature of the business transactions and that the details as stated herein above would be nothing short of depriving the accused the right, fair and free trial and the accused is entitled for the benefit of acquittal. Both the courts below ought to have taken into account these crucial and relevant aspects of the matter and non-consideration of such aspect would amount to a serious illegality and impropriety in the rendering of the impugned judgments of both the courts below. This Court is of the firm opinion that the accused is entitled for the benefit of acquittal on this ground alone. 10. From a reading of the complaints as well as the evidence of PW1, it can be seen that no iota of material evidence has been let in to prove the crucial fact that the complainant's husband had necessary source of funds at the relevant time to raise such a huge amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for being advanced to the accused. The Apex Court in the judgment in John K.Abraham v. Simon C.Abraham reported in (2014 (2) SCC 236) has held that in order to enable the complainant to draw the ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
