IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl L P No. 460 of 2007()
1. JOHNY, AGED 32, S/O. ESAKKEL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ANILKUMAR, AGED 31,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
For Respondent :SRI.G.SUDHEER KARAKKONAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN
Dated :12/07/2007
O R D E R
K. THANKAPPAN, J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.L.P.NO.460 OF 2007
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2007.
O R D E R
This is an application for special leave to appeal against the
order passed in C.C.No.4/2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
of First Class-IV, Neyyattinkara. As per the complaint filed before the
court, the 1st respondent/accused had borrowed an amount of
Rs.1,81,300/= from the petitioner and in discharge of the said
amount the 1st respondent had given Ext.P1 cheque for that amount.
When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was
dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of fund with the account of
the 1st respondent. Hence, the complaint has been filed before the
court.
2. To prove the case against the 1st respondent, the petitioner
himself was examined as PW1 and produced Exts.P1 to P6. Though
no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the 1st respondent, it was
suggested to the petitioner when he was cross examined that there
was no transaction as such revealed from the complaint. The trial
court after considering the evidence found that the petitioner was not
having any specific case or consistent case as he had stated in
CRL.L.P.No.460/2007 2
the evidence that the 1st respondent had borrowed an amount of
Rs.50,000/= only but he had a further case that the 1st respondent
had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,61,300/=. When the petitioner was
re-examined, he has further clarified that the amount borrowed by
the 1st respondent was Rs.1,81,300/=. On considering the entire
evidence, the trial court found that the petitioner miserably failed to
prove the true case before the court and he had no consistent case.
If so, it is the duty of the petitioner to prove that Ext.P1 is issued in
discharge of a legally enforcible debt. Even if the evidence of PW1 is
concerned and in the light of the writings in Ext.P1 cheque, it is to be
noted that the amount he had given to the 1st respondent is only
Rs.50,000/= and he had turned to this amount to Rs. 2,61,300/=
and further turned to Rs.1,81,300/=.
In the above circumstances, the trial court rightly found that
the petitioner failed to prove that the cheque in question was issued
in discharge of a legally enforcible debt. Accordingly, the judgment of
the trial court requires no interference by this Court. The application
for leave to appeal stands dismissed.
K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.
cl
CRL.L.P.No.460/2007 3