NOORUDHEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point raised in this revision is that the dictum laid down by this Court in Saju v. Shalimar Hardwares, Kattanam [2025 KHC OnLine 719] requires reconsideration because three decisions of the Apex Court (Vinod Shivappa v. Nanda Belliappa [2006 KHC 840], C C Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed and Another [2007 (2) KHC 932] and M/s Indo Automobiles v. M/s. Jai Durga Enterprises and Others [2008 (3) KHC 815]) and two decisions of this Court (Komala Unnikrishnan v. Manoj Kumar K. [2023 KHC 783] and Sarath C v. Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. [2024 KHC 7092]) were not considered by this Court while delivering the above judgment.

(2.) I will first narrate the facts in this case: The revision petitioner is the accused in ST No.114/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Alathur. The above case was filed by the 2nd respondent herein alleging offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "NI Act"). (Hereinafter, the revision petitioner is mentioned as the accused and the 2nd respondent is mentioned as the complainant).

(3.) The case of the complainant is that, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000.00 from the complainant, and to discharge the said debt, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.479097 of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Perumbavoor Branch. When the cheque was presented by the complainant before the State Bank of India, Nenmara Branch, the same was dishonoured, stating that there is no sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused. Though the complainant issued a lawyer notice, the accused did not pay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed.