‘Strange Defence Of Mistaken Identity’
Supreme Courtroom grants interim bail to a person accused in a 1999 Rs 20 lakh cheque bounce case, claiming he was wrongly recognized. He says the actual issuer was another person with an analogous identify.
Thanks for studying this publish, do not forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Courtroom of India granted interim reduction to a person named CK Abdurahiman, who says he has been wrongly blamed for issuing a bounced cheque value Rs 20 lakh. He says that the cheque was not issued by him, however by one other particular person with an analogous identify: CK Abdullakutty.
On June 23, the Supreme Courtroom Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard Abdurahiman’s enchantment.
The Courtroom accepted his request to problem the conviction, put a maintain (suspended) on his sentence, and granted him bail. However the Courtroom made it clear that Abdurahiman should first deposit half the cheque quantity — Rs 10 lakh — with the Courtroom registry.
Earlier, the Kerala Excessive Courtroom had stated there was sufficient proof to point out that CK Abdullakutty, who signed the cheque, and CK Abdurahiman, who was charged within the case, had been the identical particular person.
The Excessive Courtroom, in its December 2024 order, dismissed Abdurahiman’s argument and stated it was a “unusual defence” of mistaken identification.
The Excessive Courtroom gave some causes for this choice. It stated three financial institution witnesses clearly pointed to Abdurahiman as the person who signed the cheque. Additionally, each the names — “Abdullakutty” and “Abdurahiman” — had been linked to the identical home identify.
Curiously, regardless that the Excessive Courtroom admitted that the signature on the bounced cheque was not the identical as Abdurahiman’s identified signature, it nonetheless concluded that he might be responsible.
The Courtroom noticed that:
“Abdurahiman might not be within the behavior of placing an identical indicators on a regular basis.”
So, based mostly on this, the Excessive Courtroom convicted Abdurahiman underneath the cheque bounce legislation — Part 138 of the Negotiable Devices Act — in a case filed approach again in 1999.
Nevertheless, protecting in thoughts that the matter was very outdated and solely associated to a cheque bounce, the Excessive Courtroom diminished the punishment. As a substitute of jail time already given by the decrease court docket, the Excessive Courtroom sentenced him to solely in the future of straightforward imprisonment — “until the rising of the Courtroom” — and ordered him to pay Rs 23 lakh as compensation, regardless that the unique cheque quantity was Rs 20 lakh.
To know the background — the case began due to a deal in 1998. A person named Mukkath Marakkar Haji stated that he had made an settlement with Abdurahiman to promote a rubber property.
As a part of that deal, a cheque value Rs 20 lakh was issued to Haji in Could 1999. However in November 1999, that cheque bounced because of “inadequate funds.”
Right here’s an essential element — the cheque got here from the account of somebody named C Abdullakutty. However when Haji despatched a authorized discover in November 1999, it was addressed to Abdurahiman, and he was the one charged within the court docket case for dishonouring the cheque.
A trial was carried out, and in March 2004, a Justice of the Peace Courtroom in Perinthalmanna discovered Abdurahiman responsible underneath Part 138.
However in 2006, when the case went to a Classes Courtroom, that court docket canceled the conviction and stated he was not responsible.
The complainant, nevertheless, was not glad and went to the Kerala Excessive Courtroom, which restored the conviction in opposition to Abdurahiman in December 2024.
Now, Abdurahiman has approached the Supreme Courtroom and says that he’s harmless. He clearly states that:
“Neither was he a celebration to the 1998 settlement nor was he the one who issued the dishonoured cheque or the one who held the checking account from which it was issued.”
The subsequent listening to of this case within the Supreme Courtroom is scheduled for August 12.
Abdurahiman was represented by-
Sriram Parakkat, Deepak Prakash, Gayathri Muraleedharan, Nachiketa Vajpayee, Divyangna Malik, Jyoti Pandey, Rahul Suresh, Shivangi Rajawat, Chetan Jadon, Parthasarthy, Ridhika, and Samridhi Srivastava.
Cheque Bounce Cases: New Supreme Court Guidelines
CASE TITLE:
CK Abdurahiman @ Manu v. Mukkath Marakkar Haji & Anr.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Cheque Bounce
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Mistaken Identity
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
