Sudevan vs State Of Kerala on 13 March, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl L P No. 99 of 2007()


1. SUDEVAN, S/O.VALSALAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. LAKSHMI, W/O. NARAYANAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.REJI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

 Dated :13/03/2007

 O R D E R
                              K. THANKAPPAN,  J.

                                --------------------------------------

                            Crl.L.P.NO.99 OF 2007

                              ---------------------------

                  Dated this the  13th  day of March,  2007.


                                   O R D E R

This is an application for special leave to appeal against

the judgment in C.C.No.443/2006 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kayamkulam. It is stated in the

complaint that the 2nd respondent had issued a cheque in

favour of the petitioner/complainant for discharge of an

amount of Rupees Two lakhs and when the cheque was

presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured on the

ground of insufficiency of fund in the account of the account

holder. After receipt of intimation from the Bank and on

complying the statutory provisions regarding notice, the

petitioner/complainant filed the complaint. To prove the case

against the 2nd respondent, the petitioner/complainant himself

was examined as PW1 and other two witnesses were also

examined. Exts.P1 to P6 were also produced. On closing

the evidence of the complainant, the 2nd respondent was

questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. The 2nd respondent had denied her signature in

CRL.L.P.NO.99/2007 2

the cheque and even the ownership of the account from

which the alleged cheque has been issued. The 2nd

respondent also disputed the transaction between the

appellant and her which is the subject matter of the

complaint. After having considered the entire evidence

adduced by the complainant, the trial court found that the

petitioner/complainant miserably failed to prove that the

cheque is singed by the 2nd respondent and the cheque

belongs to the account of the 2nd respondent. The trial court

also found that the appellant failed to prove the financial

transaction which obliged to issue the cheque by the 2nd

respondent to the complainant. In the above circumstances,

the trial court acquitted the 2nd respondent.

2. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner/complainant and had perused the judgment of the

trial court. After considering the entire matter afresh, this

Court is of the view that the trial court had considered the

evidence adduced before the court. It could be seen that the

appellant had not proved any case against the 2nd respondent

with regard to the issuance of the cheque or to prove that the

CRL.L.P.NO.99/2007 3

cheque was signed by the 2nd respondent. Further there is no

evidence to show that any financial transaction existed

between the appellant and the 2nd respondent so as to oblige

the 2nd respondent to issue any cheque as alleged in the

complainant. In the above circumstances, the judgment of the

trial court requires no interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the leave to appeal stands dismissed,

K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.

cl

CRL.L.P.NO.99/2007 4