IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl L P No. 518 of 2007()
1. K.C.GEORGE,C/O.R.R.TRADING CO.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BONIFUS KARNETH,KARNETH HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.C.SANKUNNY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN
Dated :09/08/2007
O R D E R
K. THANKAPPAN, J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.L.P.NO.518 OF 2007
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of August, 2007.
O R D E R
This is an application for special leave to appeal against the
common order passed in C.C.Nos.1485 & 1486/2004 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kochi. The complaint filed before
the court would show that the 1st respondent had borrowed an
amount of Rs.55,000/= from the petitioner/complainant on two
occasions and in discharge of the said amount, the 1st respondent
had issued two cheques in favour of the petitioner/complainant. But,
on presentation of the cheques, the same were dishonoured on the
ground of insufficiency of fund with the account of the 1st
respondent. After getting intimation from the Bank regarding
dishonour of the cheques, a lawyer notice has been issued to the 1st
respondent but, no reply has been filed. Hence, the complaint filed
before the court alleging that the 1st respondent had committed an
offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. With the above
allegation, the petitioner/complainant himself was examined before
the court and he had given evidence in terms of the complaint.
However, PW1- the complainant himself admitted before the court
CRL.L.P.No.518/2007 2
that the cheques in question were issued only as a security and
there was also an undertaking that the cheques shall not be
presented for encashment. If so, the trial court found that the
cheques did not create any liability as per the provisions of Sections
5 and 6 of the N.I.Act. Hence, the 1st respondent has been
acquitted. Against which, this application for special leave has been
attempted.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/complainant and perused the records made available to
this Court. This Court also had gone through the deposition of
PW1- the complainant and it is stated by PW1 that the cheques
were given by the 1st respondent only as a security and there was
also an undertaking that the cheques shall not be presented for
encashment. If so, the finding entered by the trial court is
absolutely on legal basis. Hence, the judgment of the trial court
did not require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the
special leave to appeal stands dismissed.
K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.
cl
CRL.L.P.No.518/2007 3