IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.A.No. 228 of 2003() ------------------------------- CC.450/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT: -------------------------- PAZHANI DAS, S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, T.C.39/1600, PUTHEN KOTTA, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR MR.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SMT.N.SANTHA MR.SAJU JOHN SMT.RESMI G. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE: ------------------------------- 1. INDIRA DEVI,W/O.ANANTHAKRISHNAN POTTY, WORKING AS ASSISTANT IN AGRICULTURAL DEPT., GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,RESIDING AT KRISHNA INDU,T.C.8/1035,POOJAPPURA,TRIVANDRUM, NOW WORKING AS SECTION OFFICER,REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT BUILDING, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA BY ADV.MR.J.S.AJITHKUMAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl. Appeal NO. 228 OF 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of acquittal in C.C.450/98 of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thiruvananthpauram. It was a private complaint filed u/s 420 IPC. It is the case of the complainant that the accused, Indira Devi owed an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant and towards the discharge of such liability she had issued a cheque on 2.6.94. When the cheque was presented it was returned with the endorsement of insufficiency of funds and action was initiated u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. as S.T.603/94. When the Bank Manager was examined he had deposed that the cheque relates to the account kept by the husband of the accused and not that of the accused. Therefore it is submitted that the accused with her husband had defrauded and cheated the complainant and thereby had committed the offence u/s 420 IPC. The case of the accused is to the effect that there was some transaction between the husband of the Crl. Appeal NO. 228 OF 2003 -:2:- accused and others and on one such occasion they had forcibly taken three cheque leaves belonging to the husband and later came on a day and coerced and threatened her to issue a cheque that has resulted in the issuance of the cheque. It has to be stated that the cheque was issued on the account of the husband but it is signed by the wife. Learned counsel for the appellant contends before me that it is issued with the knowledge and it has been done to defraud the complainant. I had also been taken through the evidence and I feel the complainant's case cannot be accepted in the light of the evidence tendered by one of his witnesses PW3. PW3 is the husband of the accused. He had been examined as a witness on the side of the complainant. On cross examination he had made it very clear that on 15th July, 1994 PW2, the complainant and about 8 other persons came to the house and forcibly threatened the accused and made her sign the cheque and according to PW3 it is that cheque that had been utilized for filing this complaint. I do not know what prompted the complainant to examine the husband of the Crl. Appeal NO. 228 OF 2003 -:3:- accused as his witness. He has tendered evidence and he is not declared hostile. The Court of law is bound to consider it and give credence to the same. When credence is attached to the evidence of PW3 it goes without saying that he has supported the case of the defence. So when there is a transaction on account of coercion or threatening it is invalid in law and on the basis of such an instrument no action will lie. It is also to be stated that under S.420 IPC by the said threat there must be coercion to some other person to part with the property. Here the transaction is of the year January, 1994 and the cheque is issued long after that. So one cannot say that at the time of the transaction there was an element of fraud. So taking into consideration all these aspects I find the Court below was right in holding that an offence u/s 420 IPC is not attracted in this case. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- Crl. Appeal NO. 228 OF 2003 -:4:- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = Crl.A. No. 228 OF 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 19th June, 2009