Case Summary
The complainant, Mohammed Musthafa, has filed a case against the accused, Nazar Poozhikunnath, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque that was returned due to insufficient funds. The court acquitted the accused after determining that the complainant failed to prove the issuance of the cheque in relation to a legally enforceable debt.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Criminal Case
Final Judgment
No
The accused was acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act because the court found the complainant's evidence insufficient to establish the case.
Key Reasoning:
The complainant failed to prove that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt.
The complainant failed to prove that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The complainant has failed to prove that Exhibit P1 cheque was issued by the accused for consideration and in discharge of liability.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the accused is acquitted u/s 255(1) CrPC for the offence u/s 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mohammed Musthafa
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Nazar Poozhikunnath
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Cheque No.005835 dated 28.11.2013, Memo issued by Vijaya Bank, Copy of lawyer notice and Postal receipt, Lawyer notice returned with endorsement 'addressee left India', Account details, Account Statement of SBT.
Defendants Documents
Report of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- T.P Abdul Jabbar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Mujeeb Rahiman
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
Evidence:
Therefore, I find the accused not guilty for the said offence.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Cheque
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Cheque issued by the accused to the complainant for repayment of borrowed amount.
Reference:
Ext.P1
Document Type:
F.S.L Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report comparing the questioned signature on the cheque with standard specimens.
Reference:
Ext.X1
Document Type:
Memo
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document issued by the bank regarding the dishonour of the cheque.
Reference:
Ext.P2
Document Type:
Legal Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the lawyer's notice sent to the accused after the cheque was dishonoured.
Reference:
Ext.P3(a,b)
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Lawyer notice returned with the endorsement 'addressee left India'.
Reference:
Ext.P4
Document Type:
Account Details
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Details of the accused's bank account.
Reference:
Ext.P5
Document Type:
Account Statement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Statement of account of the accused showing transactions.
Reference:
Ext.P6
Case Classification
Case Type
Criminal Case
Category
Cheque Bounce Cases
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Cheque dishonour
Case Code
Case between Mohammed Musthafa vs Nazar Poozhikunnath regarding cheque dishonor
Case Code Year
Case between Mohammed Musthafa vs Nazar Poozhikunnath regarding cheque dishonor
Case Flags
Cheque-Related Case
Nature of Cheque Case
Cheque Dishonour under Section 138 N.I. Act