Case Summary
Bennet, the complainant, alleged that Ajith K Sebastian borrowed ₹20 Lakhs and failed to repay, resulting in a cheque being dishonoured. The court found the accused not guilty, as the complainant could not prove the existence of a transaction.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Criminal Case
Final Judgment
No
The accused was found not guilty and acquitted of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Key Reasoning:
The complainant could not establish the financial capacity to lend the amount or provide sufficient evidence for the transaction.
The complainant could not establish the financial capacity to lend the amount or provide sufficient evidence for the transaction.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The defence could rebut the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act through cross-examination of the PW1, leading to serious doubt about the existence of debt.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and he is acquitted u/s 255(1) of the Cr.P.C.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Bennet
- Party Age
- 49
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ajith K Sebastian
- Party Age
- 36
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Cheque No.289491, Pay in slip, Cheque return memo, Office copy of legal notice, Postal receipt, Postal acknowledgment card
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Adv.Jaison Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Adv.S.Rajesh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The complainant claimed that the accused was guilty of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Evidence:
In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and he is acquitted.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Cheque
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The accused issued Ext.P1 cheque to the complainant for discharging a legally enforceable debt of ₹20,00,000/-.
Reference:
Ext.P1
Document Type:
Pay in Slip
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext.P2 is the pay in slip issued from Canara Bank, Bharananganam branch for the receipt of the cheque.
Reference:
Ext.P2
Document Type:
Cheque Return Memo
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext.P3 is the cheque return memo dated 11.11.2019 issued from the Canara Bank, Bharananganam branch.
Reference:
Ext.P3
Document Type:
Legal Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext.P4 is the office copy of the legal notice sent to the accused.
Reference:
Ext.P4
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext.P5 is the postal receipt dated 22.11.2019 for sending the statutory notice.
Reference:
Ext.P5
Document Type:
Postal Acknowledgment Card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext.P6 is the postal acknowledgment card showing that the accused received the notice on 26.11.2019.
Reference:
Ext.P6
Case Classification
Case Type
Criminal Case
Category
Cheque Bounce Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Pala
Common Reasons
Cheque dishonour
Case Code
Case between Bennet vs Ajith K Sebastian regarding dishonour of cheque under NI Act.
Case Code Year
Case between Bennet vs Ajith K Sebastian regarding dishonour of cheque under NI Act.
Case Flags
Cheque-Related Case
Nature of Cheque Case
Cheque Dishonour under Section 138 N.I. Act