w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



P.G. Joshy v/s Jose Varghese, Proprietor, Nice Agencies, Ernakulam & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- C V AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC027178

Company & Directors' Information:- S R B AGENCIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U63090WB1988PTC044096

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND A AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109761

Company & Directors' Information:- A & T AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2009PTC188642

Company & Directors' Information:- B L AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MP2009PTC022728

Company & Directors' Information:- NICE AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52390WB2010PTC142410

Company & Directors' Information:- J J AGENCIES PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U51101TN1984PTC062364

Company & Directors' Information:- R K AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921WB1967PTC027084

Company & Directors' Information:- D. C. AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2016PTC304376

Company & Directors' Information:- L K AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24119WB1997PTC085135

Company & Directors' Information:- G J AGENCIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1991PTC052043

Company & Directors' Information:- N. R. AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65910UP1994PTC016322

Company & Directors' Information:- A P R AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74120DL2000PTC107363

Company & Directors' Information:- N N AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL1999PTC101803

Company & Directors' Information:- K P VARGHESE AND COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909KL1990PTC005731

Company & Directors' Information:- N J JOSE AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U55101KL1979PTC003037

Company & Directors' Information:- C P AGENCIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1982PTC027553

Company & Directors' Information:- M I AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2006PTC111379

Company & Directors' Information:- B B AGENCIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1991PTC051042

Company & Directors' Information:- P L AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50100HR1990PTC030793

Company & Directors' Information:- M B AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC028303

Company & Directors' Information:- S R AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51311TZ1993PTC004684

Company & Directors' Information:- S K S AGENCIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900TZ2011PLC016844

Company & Directors' Information:- G M C AGENCIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U34102WB1984PTC037193

Company & Directors' Information:- A L B AGENCIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL1974PTC007574

Company & Directors' Information:- K B AGENCIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51209MH1981PTC025176

Company & Directors' Information:- J D AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109UP2001PTC026118

Company & Directors' Information:- H & A AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2016PTC289499

Company & Directors' Information:- T S AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28991WB1956PTC023146

Company & Directors' Information:- R. S. AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U51909WB2010PTC140902

Company & Directors' Information:- E K AGENCIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52342OR1994PTC003777

Company & Directors' Information:- R A AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51310MH2001PTC130448

Company & Directors' Information:- K K AGENCIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36992WB1976PTC030699

Company & Directors' Information:- D V S AGENCIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U00000DL1983PTC016402

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND S AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51109DL1993PTC052016

Company & Directors' Information:- D S AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120GJ2015PTC083422

Company & Directors' Information:- R A AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909MH1997PTC110053

Company & Directors' Information:- G S C AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1992PTC049001

Company & Directors' Information:- M R AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909GJ1960PTC000959

Company & Directors' Information:- P. D. AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC055259

Company & Directors' Information:- G M AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1994PTC076202

Company & Directors' Information:- P S S AGENCIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL1988PTC032598

Company & Directors' Information:- M M AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U20299KA1977PTC003257

Company & Directors' Information:- B R AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140GJ1989PTC011998

Company & Directors' Information:- K J VARGHESE AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1967PTC001702

Company & Directors' Information:- E G AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1998PTC087248

Company & Directors' Information:- S K AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909GJ1988PTC011354

Company & Directors' Information:- R. B. AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74991UP2006PTC032620

Company & Directors' Information:- P R AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U51494MH2001PTC132847

Company & Directors' Information:- A F AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1976PTC018979

Company & Directors' Information:- M C S AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090MH2002PTC134911

Company & Directors' Information:- S D AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909CH2012PTC033796

Company & Directors' Information:- G S AGENCIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1981PTC011493

Company & Directors' Information:- S S R K AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2004PTC125313

Company & Directors' Information:- AGENCIES PVT LTD [Dissolved] CIN = U74900KL1943PTC000048

Company & Directors' Information:- M C AGENCIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51226KL1990PTC005655

Company & Directors' Information:- G B AGENCIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1990PTC048136

Company & Directors' Information:- G. A. AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109JK1986PTC000852

Company & Directors' Information:- G AND V AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65929DL1965PTC004446

Company & Directors' Information:- R S E AGENCIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL1976PTC008040

Company & Directors' Information:- T T AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00894KA1985PTC006617

Company & Directors' Information:- D R AGENCIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1948PTC016264

Company & Directors' Information:- D L M AGENCIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51420WB1954PTC021631

    CRL.A. No. 1296 of 2008

    Decided On, 19 September 2019

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

    For the Appellant: George Sebastian, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Abraham Mathew Vettoor, Advocate, E.C. Bineesh, G.P.



Judgment Text

1. The appellant is the complainant. Challenge in the appeal is directed against the acquittal of the first respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The case of the complainant, as stated in the complaint, is as follows: The accused issued a cheque dated 20.04.2004 for Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The complainant presented the cheque in the bank. The cheque was dishonoured for the reason that payment was stopped. The complainant received intimation regarding the dishonour of the cheque on 09.09.2004. He sent a lawyer notice to the accused on 13.09.2004 demanding payment of the amount of the cheque. The accused received the notice. He did not pay the amount.

3. During the trial of the case, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 documents were marked on his side. DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D5 documents were marked on the side of the accused.

4. The trial court found that there are suspicious circumstances regarding the execution of the cheque by the accused and issuing it by him to the complainant in discharge of a debt. Therefore, the trial court found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and acquitted him.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and also the first respondent and perused the records.

6. Ext.P1 is the cheque dated 20.04.2004 for Rs.2,00,000/- alleged to have been executed by the accused and delivered by him to the complainant. The cheque is seen signed by the proprietor of “Nice Agencies”. Ext.P2 memorandum dated 08.9.2004 issued from the bank shows that the cheque was returned unpaid for the reason that payment was stopped by drawer. Ext.P3 memorandum issued from the bank would show that intimation was given to the complainant from his bank regarding the dishonour of the cheque on 09.09.2004. Ext.P4 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 13.09.2004 sent by the complainant to the accused demanding payment of the amount of the cheque. The complainant had sent the notice to the accused in the residential as well as business address. Ext.P5 postal acknowledgment card shows that the accused had received the notice, which was sent to his residential address, on 14.09.2004. The complaint was filed on 07.10.2004.

7. Ext.D1 is the copy of the reply notice dated 28.09.2004 sent by the accused to the complainant. The plea raised by the accused in Ext.D1 reply notice as well as the statement filed by him under Section 313 Cr.P.C can be summarised as follows: He did not owe any debt or liability to the complainant. He is the proprietor of a furniture shop. He had dealings with the business concern of the complainant by name “M/s.Royal Associates” at Angamaly. The business transactions with the firm of the complainant were stopped by him by November, 2003. Even thereafter, the complainant and his partner were not prepared to settle the accounts of business on mutual discussions. On 20.01.2004, the complainant and his partner and three other persons trespassed into his shop and forcibly took his cheque book and threatened and compelled him to sign two cheque leaves. Unable to resist them, he signed the cheque leaves. The complainant has misused one of the cheque leaves and filed the complaint. The partner of the complainant has filed another case against him by misusing the other cheque leaf.

8. When examined as PW1, the complainant gave evidence in examination-in-chief (proof affidavit) that the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 20.04.2004 to him for discharging the legally enforceable debt due to him.

9. PW1 has stated on cross-examination that the accused signed Ext.P1 cheque in his presence and gave it to him. In reexamination, he stated that he was not aware whether the accused had already made the entries in the cheque and kept it with him. But, PW1 reiterated that the accused signed the cheque in his presence.

10. The trial court has found that the signature in Ext.P1 cheque alone belongs to the accused and that the other entries in the cheque are in a different handwriting and that the complainant has no definite case that the cheque was filled up in his presence and it creates doubt as to the execution of the cheque by the accused.

11. A person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable under Section 138 of the Act unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque was filled up by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars in the cheque. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove, by adducing evidence, that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt or liability. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt. In the absence of any evidence with regard to the circumstances in which a blank signed cheque was delivered by the accused to the complainant, it may reasonably be presumed that, the cheque was filled in by the complainant being the payee, in the presence of the accused being the drawer, at his request and/or with his acquiescence. The subsequent filling up of an unfilled signed cheque does not amount to an alteration of the cheque (See Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar : AIR 2019 SC 2446).

12. In the instant case, the evidence of PW1 that, the accused signed the cheque in his presence and gave it to him, is sufficient to prove execution of the cheque by the accused. Even if it is accepted that it was a blank cheque which was signed and given by the accused to the complainant and that the complainant or some other person has filled up the particulars in the cheque, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Bir Singh (supra), the presumption under Section 139 of the Act would be attracted. Then, the burden is upon the accused to rebut the presumption.

13. The plea of the accused is that the complainant and his partner trespassed into his shop and forcibly took two cheque leaves and compelled him to sign the cheque leaves. In other words, the plea of the accused is that he had signed only a blank cheque leaf, that too, under threat and coercion. The burden is upon the accused to prove this plea. The accused relies upon the evidence of DW1 and Exts.D3 and D4 documents to prove his plea.

14. DW1 is said to be a person who was employed in the shop of the accused during the period from January, 2004 to February, 2005. He has given evidence that, one day, during the aforesaid period, the owner of 'Royal Associates' and four other persons came to the shop and they opened the drawer of the table in the shop and took two cheque leaves and forcibly made the accused to sign them. He has stated that the aforesaid incident took place during the second or third week of January, 2004.

15. The evidence of DW1 in examination-in-chief that the complainant and his partner, by force, got two blank cheque leaves signed from the accused, has not been effectively challenged in the cross-examination. Not even a suggestion was made to DW1 in the cross-examination that no such incident took place. Nothing was brought out in the cross-examination of DW1 to discredit his evidence regarding the said incident.

16. Merely because defence witnesses support the case of the accused, they cannot be held to be untruthful. What is to be considered is the intrinsic worth of the testimony of a witness. Defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution. Quite often, they tell lies, but so do the prosecution witnesses (See Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. AIR 1981 SC 911). Depositions of witnesses, whether they are examined on the prosecution side or defence side or as court witnesses, constitute oral evidence in the case. The scrutiny thereof shall be without any predilection or bias. No witness is entitled to get better treatment merely because he was examined as a prosecution witness or even as a court witness. It is judicial scrutiny which is warranted in respect of the depositions of all witnesses. Different yardsticks cannot be prescribed for appreciation of the testimony of different categories of witnesses (See State of U.P v. Babu Ram : AIR 2000 SC 1735).

17. Ext.D3 is the copy of the complaint alleged to have been given by the accused, against the complainant and his partner, to the Circle Inspector, Kalamassery. Ext.D4 is the copy of the complaint given by the accused, against the complainant and his partner, to the Circle Inspector, Ernakulam Central Police Station. The averments in Exts.D3 and D4 complaints are identical. In Exts.D3 and D4 complaints given to the police, the accused had stated that on 20.01.2004, at about 11.30 hours, the complainant and his partner and three other persons trespassed into his shop and opened the drawer of the table in the shop and took two cheque leaves and that they threatened him and got his signature in the cheque leaves.

18. It is true that the accused did not take steps to summon the originals of Exts.D3 and D4 complaints from the police station. However, PW1 has stated that the complaints given to the police by the accused were returned stating that they were false. Therefore, the complainant cannot dispute the fact that the accused had given Exts.D3 and D4 complaints to the police regarding the incident. PW1 has also admitted that he and the accused had signed at the police station.

19. It is true that regarding the incident that allegedly took place on 20.01.2004, the accused had given Exts.D3 and D4 complaints to the police only on 20.08.2004. However, the delay in making complaint to the police regarding the incident that took place on 20.01.2004, is not sufficient to disbelieve the plea of the accused. In the complaints given by him to the police, it is stated that the complainant and his partner used to blackmail him and threaten him. Moreover, when the evidence of DW1 is accepted as believable, even in the absence of Exts.D3 and D4 complaints, the plea of the accused would stand proved.

20. There is yet another circumstance which indicates that the plea of the accused is very much probable. Before he gave evidence as PW1, the complainant was very much aware of the plea of the accused. The complainant had received Ext.D1 reply notice sent by the accused. However, there is not even a whisper made by PW1 in examination-in-chief about the plea raised by the accused. Even though the complainant was fully aware of the plea of the accused regarding the execution of the cheque, his evidence in examination-in-chief does not contain even a bare assertion denying the truth of such plea raised by the accused.

21. When a presumption is rebuttable, it only points out the party on whom lies the duty of going forward with evidence on the fact presumed. When that party has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that the real fact is not as presumed, the purpose of the presumption is over. The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two options. He can show that consideration and debt did not exist. He may also show that, under the particular circumstances of the case, the non-existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. An accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the cheque in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. But, the Court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, bare denial of passing of consideration and existence of debt, would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumption, the accused should bring on record, such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the Court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. Apart from adducing direct evidence to prove that the cheque in question was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence. If the circumstances so relied upon are compelling, the burden would shift again on to the complainant. The accused may also rely upon presumptions of fact, as those mentioned in Section 114 of the Evidence Act, to rebut the presumption arising under Section 139 of the Act. The accused has also an option to prove the non-existence of consideration and debt or liability from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial (See Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets : AIR 2009 SC 1518).

22. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, in the nature of the defence set up by the accused, the best evidence to prove his plea that he had signed the cheque under threat and coercion, would have been his own testimony, but the accused has not chosen to adduce such evidence.

23. The aforesaid contention runs counter to the provisions contained in Section 315 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India states that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Section 315(1) of the Code provides that any person accused of an offence before a criminal court shall be a competent witness for the defence and may give evidence on oath in disproof of the charges made against him or any person charged together with him at the same trial. However, the proviso to Section 315(1) of the Code states that the accused shall not be called as a witness except on his own request in writing and that his failure to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by any of the parties or the Court or give rise to any presumption against himself or any person charged together with him at the same trial.

24. It is basic criminal jurisprudence that an accused cannot be compelled to be examined as a witness. No adverse inference can be drawn against the accused merely because he has chosen to abstain from the witness box (See Kashiram v.State of M.P : AIR 2001 SC 2902). The right of the accused to keep silence finds its expression in the provision contained in Section 315 (1) of the Code. It is the mandate of the proviso to Section 315(1) of the Code that the failure of the accused to give evidence shall not be subject to any comment by any of the parties or the court or give rise to any presumption against himself or any person charged together with him at the same trial. It is immaterial that, in a case, the burden is on the accused to prove a fact. No court can comment on the choice made by the accused to abstain from the witness box. Failure or omission of the accused to examine himself as a witness shall not attract any comment from the court. No adverse inference can be made against the accused on his failure to enter the witness box.

25. Of course, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the evidence of DW1 is not reliable and Exts.D3 and D4 documents cannot be acted upon by the court and that the evidence adduced by the accused does not enable him to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. Even if this contention is accepted, it has to be found that the accused has been able to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act by relying upon the case set out by the complainant, the averments or absence of material averments in the complaint and also the evidence adduced by the complainant. Kumar Exports (supra) holds that such a course is open to the accused. The facts and circumstances hereinafter enumerated enable the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act.

26. Firstly, the complaint and the statutory notice do not disclose how or in what manner, the accused incurred any debt or liability to the complainant. There is no averment in the complaint as to the transaction between the complainant and the accused or the nature of the debt or liability incurred by the accused. It is only stated in the complaint that the accused issued the cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Of course, absence of averments in the complaint or the notice regarding the nature of the debt or liability of the accused, does not affect the maintainability of the complaint or the validity of the notice. But, absence of averments in the complaint as to the details of the transaction between the complainant and the accused, in which the accused incurred the debt or liability, or the nature of the debt or liability of the accused, affects the credibility of the evidence subsequently adduced by the complainant regarding any such transaction. It affects the credibility of the case set up by the complainant against the accused. In the instant case, the complaint does not disclose that there was a loan transaction between the complainant and the accused. The date on which the accused borrowed the amount from the complainant, the date on which he gave the cheque to the complainant and the date on which the complainant presented the cheque in the bank are also not mentioned in the complaint. Absence of such details in the complaint affects the credibility of the evidence given by the complainant (See Vijay v. Laxman : (2013) 3 SCC 86 and Divakaran v. State of Kerala : 2016 (4) KHC 901).

27. Secondly, even in examination-in-chief, the complainant did not disclose any details regarding the alleged transaction between him and the accused. The complainant did not state even in examination-in-chief that the accused had borrowed money from him. In examination-in-chief, PW1 has only stated that the accused issued the cheque for discharging the legally enforceable debt due to him. It is only during the cross-examination that the complainant would disclose that the accused had borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from him on 20.03.2004. Such a case is disclosed by the complainant for the first time only during the cross-examination. PW1 has given evidence that there was no reason for not disclosing the nature and details of the transaction between him and the accused in the complaint.

28. Thirdly, even in examination-in-chief, the complainant has not given any evidence that the accused signed Ext.P1 cheque in his presence and gave it to him. Such a case was put forward by him only during the cross-examination. Absence of any averment by PW1 in examination-in-chief (proof affidavit) regarding the execution of the cheque by the accused has got significance. The complainant was

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

very well aware that plea of the accused was that the cheque was got signed from him under threat and coercion. As noticed earlier, the complainant did not even make a bare statement in examination-in-chief denying the truth of the aforesaid plea raised by the accused. 29. Fourthly, the evidence of the complainant reveals that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was due from the accused in the business transaction. The plea of the complainant that, inspite of the fact that the accused owed him an amount of Rs.20,000/-, he further advanced a personal loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused, is not at all credible. It is to be noted that, as per the evidence given by the complainant, he had obtained the amount from his wife, parents and friends for lending it to the accused. It cannot be believed that the complainant collected an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from his wife, parents and friends and gave it to the accused, that too, without obtaining any document from the accused as security for such amount, when the accused already owed him Rs.20,000/- in the business transaction. 30. The aforesaid circumstances enable the accused to persuade the court to believe that he had not incurred any debt or liability to the complainant and that he had not issued the cheque to the complainant in discharge of any debt or liability. Thus, even if it is found that the specific plea set up by the accused as to the possession of his cheque by the complainant is not proved by him, he could succeed in rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the Act by relying upon the facts and circumstances of the case set up by the complainant against him and also the facts and circumstances brought out in the evidence of the complainant. Then, in the absence of any reliable evidence adduced by the complainant to prove the transaction alleged by him, he has failed to prove that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. 31. In the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused, does not warrant any interference by this Court in appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

24-09-2020 State of Kerala, Represented by The Assistant Labour Officer, Munnar, Through The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam Versus Annakutty Varghese, Proprietress, M/s. Misha Holiday Home, Munnar High Court of Kerala
14-09-2020 Dr. Varghese Perayil Versus The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
06-08-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Kottayam, Rep. by The Manager Versus O.S. Varghese & Others High Court of Kerala
06-08-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kodungallur Versus M.M. Jose Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
05-08-2020 Liju Jose & Another Versus Anto P. Ignatious & Another High Court of Kerala
05-08-2020 M.P. Varghese Versus Annamma Yacob & Another High Court of Kerala
29-07-2020 Iype Varghese Versus The Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki & Others High Court of Kerala
21-07-2020 The District Collector, Ernakulam & Others Versus Fr. Jose Uppani, Director, 'Sneha Sishrushalayam'(Chittoor Retreat Centre), Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
17-07-2020 M.G. Jose & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Government of Kerala, Department of Home Affairs, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
01-07-2020 Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Mohan Co Operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi & Others Versus Jose George Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
25-06-2020 Continental & Eastern Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Through its Director Krishan Verma Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its concerned Director Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
23-06-2020 M/s. Acme Trade And Agencies, ASSAM Versus Union of India Rep. By The Secy. to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 K.S. Varghese & Others Versus St Peter's & Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church & Others Supreme Court of India
12-06-2020 Monika Sales Agencies & Another Versus Mahesh Nagari Sah. Patsanstha Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-06-2020 P.P. Jose, Manager, Mattoor, Kalady, Rice Tech Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus M.M. Abdulkhader, Proprietor, East India Trading Company, Kothamangalam & Another High Court of Kerala
21-05-2020 K.C. Varghese @ Kunjunju Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 Raj Shipping Agencies & Others V/s. Barge Madhwa & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-05-2020 Sri Venkateshwara Agencies, represented by its proprietor K. Somasundar Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Check Post Officer, Thoppur Inward, Kurinji Nagar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-04-2020 Flemingo Travel Retail Limited, Having Registered Office at Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Represented by Its Authorised Signatory Nixon Varghese Versus Kannur International Airport Limited, Mattannur, Represented by Its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
23-03-2020 Beena Reji Versus Varghese George & Another High Court of Kerala
18-03-2020 Varghese Kurian & Another Versus State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
16-03-2020 Kalipilakkal Varghese & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Circle Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna Police Station High Court of Kerala
13-03-2020 Parappurathu Varghese Mathai & Others Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-28 & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-03-2020 M/s. Logical Developers Private Limited, New Delhi, Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Jose Joseph, Kochi & Another Versus M/s. Muthoot Mini Financiers Private Limited, Pathanamthitta, Represented by Its Chairman & Managing Director Roy M. Mathew & Others High Court of Kerala
03-03-2020 O. Thomas & Others Versus Dr. Abraham Jose, Prof. of Orthopaedics, Pushpagiri Medical College, Thiruvalla & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
02-03-2020 Jose Versus Johnson Supreme Court of India
26-02-2020 Tata Marine Agencies, New Delhi & Another Versus L.W.S. Knitwear Ltd., Punjab & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-02-2020 Jose Mathew Versus The State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies (B) Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
07-02-2020 In Re. Makarand Anant Mhaskar (Sole Proprietor of M/s Welcome Agencies), Maharashtra Versus USV Private Limited, Arvind Vithal Ghandi Chowk, BSD Marg, Govandi, Mumbai & Others Competition Commission of India
06-02-2020 Jose Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
05-02-2020 M/s. Natesan Agencies (Plantations) Versus State Rep. By The Secretary to Govt. Environment & Forest Department Supreme Court of India
27-01-2020 Martin Jose & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Inspector Of Police, Kalady, Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
27-01-2020 P.V. Sudhamol Versus Mariamma Varghese & Another High Court of Kerala
23-01-2020 Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Kochi, Represented by Its Asst. General Manager-HR, Boban Varghese Thomas & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary, Labour & Welfare Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
23-01-2020 M/s. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director & Chairman P. Jose Versus Rajiv Kumar Ishwar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2020 Tata Consultancy Services Limited, TCS Centre, Kochi, Represented by Its Asst. General Manager-HR, Boban Varghese Thomas & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary, Labour & Welfare Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
14-01-2020 Sam Daniel V/S A.A. Jose & Another High Court of Kerala
13-01-2020 Kodanchery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Represented by Its Secretary, Kozhikode & Others Versus Joshy Varghese & Others High Court of Kerala
09-01-2020 M/s. Mahalakshmi Agencies, Nagpur Versus M/s. General Surgical Co. (India) Pvt Ltd., Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, Thodupuzha Kara, Represented by Its Trustees, M.C. Shibu (2) Benny Elias & Others Versus Dr. Abraham Varghese & Others High Court of Kerala
08-01-2020 M.K. Varghese Cor Episcopa, Now Working as Vicar, St. Marys Orthodox Church, Koipally, Kayamkulam Versus State of Kerala Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Kochi & Another High Court of Kerala
07-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Gopal Agencies National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-12-2019 M/s. Murali Manpower Agencies Versus Survey of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-12-2019 Jose Olimpia Martins & Others Versus State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
03-12-2019 Mathew Varghese Versus Krishnan, Kuttanad & Others High Court of Kerala
03-12-2019 P.H. Salim Versus Joji Jose & Another High Court of Kerala
28-11-2019 Joseph Mathai @ Jose Versus State of Kerala, Thiruvampady Police Station, Crime No.199/07 High Court of Kerala
25-11-2019 Jose Sebastian Versus State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
15-11-2019 A.P. Varghese Versus The Chief Manager (Authorised Officer), Vijaya Bank, Ernakulam, Kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
12-11-2019 Jose Philip & Another Versus Muhammed Ali & Another High Court of Kerala
06-11-2019 M/s. Oriental Kuries Ltd. Represented By Its Chairman P.D. Jose Versus Lissa & Others Supreme Court of India
04-11-2019 Subhi Varghese Versus State of Kerala High Court of Kerala
04-11-2019 M/s. Sivamathi Animation Softwares & Electronics Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, R.S. Sivaprakasam, Chennai & Another Versus M/s. Kumar Agencies, Represented by its Proprietor, P.V. Rathinakumar, Vellore High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-10-2019 M/s. Coramandal Agencies, Rep. by its Managing Partner R. Veeramani & Others Versus The State rep by the Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-10-2019 George Varghese Versus S. Binu & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-10-2019 M/s. Crystal Apartments, CSI Commercial Centre, Baker Junction, Kottayam represented by its Managing Partner Binny Itty, Govindapuram kara, Kottayam Versus Saji Thomas Varghese, Chalukunnau, Kottayam rep. By Power of Attorney Holder & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
03-10-2019 Williams Daniel Versus Jose High Court of Kerala
25-09-2019 Jose Versus Magy John High Court of Kerala
24-09-2019 M/s. MKV Agencies Versus M/s. TVS Motors Company Ltd, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-09-2019 Jose Paulo Coutinho Versus Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira & Another Supreme Court of India
06-09-2019 Amala Multi Speciality Hospital, Keezhoor, Rep.by its Managing Director Versus Biju @ Bijesh T Jose & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
06-09-2019 Assistant Secretary, Electrical department, Thrissur Corporation, Thrissur & Another Versus Jose C.D, Honey Dew, Ayyanthole, Thrissur Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
04-09-2019 Valsa Jose Versus V.B. Chandran & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2019 The Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram Versus S.V. Silbert Jose & Others High Court of Kerala
30-08-2019 Anil P. Varghese Versus Naji & Others High Court of Kerala
22-08-2019 M/s. Globe Detective Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus M/s. Gammon India Ltd., (Chennai Metro Rail Project) High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-08-2019 Joseph Thomas @ Jose & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
05-08-2019 Solaman Varghese Versus The District Geologist, Department of Mining & Geology, Alappuzha & Others High Court of Kerala
31-07-2019 The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata Versus German Express Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-07-2019 Varghese Arackal Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
30-07-2019 Zenith Drugs & Allied Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Represented By Its Managing Director, Shri Uday Krishna Paul Versus M/s. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Supreme Court of India
26-07-2019 The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai & Others Versus M/s. Antony Motors P. Ltd., Mumbai, Rep. by its Director Jose Antony High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-07-2019 M/s. Mukesh Agencies Versus Commissioner, Trade & Taxes & Others High Court of Delhi
24-07-2019 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, Kottayam, Now Represented by R. Jayachandran, Manager Legal Versus M.D. Davasia @ Jose & Another High Court of Kerala
23-07-2019 E.F. Jose Versus The Assistant Engineer, Thrissur & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
23-07-2019 Jose Mani & Others Versus Panjos Gardens Apartment Owners' Association, Kochi, Represented by The President Sebastian George & Others High Court of Kerala
23-07-2019 M/s. N.L. Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Ernakulam South, Represented by C.V. Varghese, Director, Irinjalakuda Versus Commissioner of Customs, Cochin High Court of Kerala
17-07-2019 Chettupuzha Varghese Johny Versus K.B. Menon Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
10-07-2019 Varghese Versus Mathrubhumi Printing & Publishing Co. (P) Ltd., Kozhikode, Represented by Managing Editor & Others High Court of Kerala
03-07-2019 The Kunnathunadu Taluk Primary Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd., Perumbavoor, Represented by Its Secretary M.K. Varghese Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Principal Secretary to Government, Co. Operative Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
01-07-2019 Sijo Varghese Versus Dona B. Daisy, Kottayam, Reprsented by father & next friend Thomas High Court of Kerala
28-06-2019 Jithin Varghese Prakash, Represented by the Power of Attorney Holder, Prakash Varghese Versus The Registrar of Marriage, Piravom Municipality High Court of Kerala
25-06-2019 Manesh Varghese Versus Sainulabudeen & Another High Court of Kerala
25-06-2019 Manesh Varghese Versus Sainulabudeen & Another High Court of Kerala
24-06-2019 The Administrator, St. Thomas Hospital, Chethipuzha P.O, Changanachery Versus Jose C. Moolayil, Moolayil Veedu, Kottayam & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
21-06-2019 P.E. Thomas & Others Versus Abraham Jose Rocky & Others High Court of Kerala
20-06-2019 Alice Jose Versus Cherthala Municipality, Rep. by Its Secretary & Another High Court of Kerala
18-06-2019 M/s. Amman Agencies, Represented by its Proprietor C. Velusamy, Villupuram Versus The Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT), Commercial Taxes Department, Cuddalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-05-2019 James Jose Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, (Through The Sub Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town North Police Station) High Court of Kerala
01-05-2019 Commissioner of Trade & Taxes, Delhi & Others Versus Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Super Agencies, M/s. Ingram Micro India Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
30-04-2019 M/s. Green Port Shipping Agencies, Represented by its Partner S. Avudaiammal, Tuticorin Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-04-2019 M/s. Greenland Agencies Partnership Firm & Others Versus Nivedita & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
29-04-2019 M/s. Sri Laxmi agencies, rep.by its Proprietor, K.S. Rao Versus State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Minorities Department, Secretariat & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
15-04-2019 M/s. Diamond Shipping Agencies, Rep. by its Managing Director Versus The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-04-2019 Manoj Varghese & Others Versus Divya Susan Thomas @ Divya Susan Manoj High Court of Kerala
05-04-2019 Prasoon Prabhakaran Versus Henry Varghese Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
26-03-2019 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. Chakiat Agencies Pvt. Limited., Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-03-2019 Jose Varghese Versus State of Kerala, Represented By S.I. of Police High Court of Kerala
15-03-2019 Jose & Others Versus The Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, Represented by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
14-03-2019 Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Commercial Tax Department, Puducherry Versus M/s. Arun Agencies Rep. by its Proprietor, Puducherry High Court of Judicature at Madras