Case Summary
Kunnummal Aayisha filed a private complaint against Punnakkayathil Ahammad for dishonoring a cheque worth Rs. 5,00,000. The accused denied the liability, claiming the cheque was misused.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Criminal Case
Final Judgment
No
The accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and was acquitted.
Key Reasoning:
The complainant did not establish the execution of the cheque and the liability.
The complainant did not establish the execution of the cheque and the liability.
Why Defendant Won:
The complainant did not establish the execution of the cheque and the liability.
The complainant did not establish the execution of the cheque and the liability.
Supporting Evidence
The complainant has not proved the identity and the execution of the cheque.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, (i) The accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Kunnummal Aayisha
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Punnakkayathil Ahammad
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Cheque No. 10014288, Cheque Return Memo, Lawyer notice, Postal Receipt, Acknowledgment Card, Reply notice, Agreement
Defendants Documents
Google Pay transaction receipt
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Abdul Latheef V. K.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- A. K. Balakrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- M. Siju
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was not upheld.
Evidence:
The accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and is acquitted.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Cheque
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proved the amount borrowed by the accused from the complainant.
Reference:
P1
Document Type:
Cheque Return Memo
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Showed that the cheque was returned for insufficient funds.
Reference:
P2
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Intimated the accused about the cheque default.
Reference:
P3
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provided proof of sending the lawyer notice.
Reference:
P4
Document Type:
Acknowledgment card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirmed receipt of the lawyer notice by the accused.
Reference:
P5
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Replied to the lawyer notice denying liability.
Reference:
P6
Document Type:
Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Documented the transaction between the complainant and the accused.
Reference:
P7
Document Type:
Google Pay transaction
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Demonstrated payment made by the accused to the complainant.
Reference:
D1
Document Type:
Google Pay transaction
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Showed another payment made by the accused related to the transaction.
Reference:
D2
Case Classification
Case Type
Criminal Case
Category
Cheque Bounce Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Kunnummal Aayisha vs Punnakkayathil Ahammad regarding dishonor of cheque
Case Code Year
Case between Kunnummal Aayisha vs Punnakkayathil Ahammad regarding dishonor of cheque
Case Flags
Cheque-Related Case
Nature of Cheque Case
Cheque Dishonour under Section 138 N.I. Act