Case Summary
Thomas C Kondody, the complainant and proprietor of Kondody Bankers, alleged that Ibrahim Fazil issued a cheque that bounced due to insufficient funds. The case was tried under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Criminal Case
Final Judgment
No
The court found the accused not guilty for the offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act and acquitted him. The complaint was dismissed as time-barred.
Key Reasoning:
The complaint was found to be technically time-barred due to not being filed within 30 days of the cause of action.
The complaint was found to be technically time-barred due to not being filed within 30 days of the cause of action.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
the complaint is technically time barred and is not maintainable.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the accused is found not guilty for offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Therefore, the accused is acquitted U/s. 255(1) Cr.P.C.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Thomas C Kondody
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ibrahim Fazil
Plaintiffs Documents
Money lending license, Cheque bearing no.870269 for ₹51,000, Dishonour memo, Lawyer’s notice, Postal receipt, Acknowledgment card
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- N Gopalakrishnan & Unnikrishnan G
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Rajan K Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The complaint was dismissed due to being time-barred.
Evidence:
this court finds that the complaint is not maintainable and is technically time-barred.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Money lending license
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Established the complainant's authority to lend money.
Reference:
Ext.P1
Document Type:
Cheque
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The cheque issued by the accused in discharge of the loan.
Reference:
Ext.P2
Document Type:
Dishonour memo
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrated that the cheque was returned unpaid.
Reference:
Ext.P3
Document Type:
Lawyer’s Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Showed that the complainant informed the accused of the dishonour.
Reference:
Ext.P4
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provided proof of sending the notice to the accused.
Reference:
Ext.P5
Document Type:
Acknowledgment card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirmed receipt of the statutory notice by the accused.
Reference:
Ext.P6
Case Classification
Case Type
Criminal Case
Category
Cheque Bounce Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Non-payment of rent
Case Code
S.T.
Case Code Year
2020
Case Flags
Cheque-Related Case
Nature of Cheque Case
Cheque Dishonour under Section 138 N.I. Act