IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.L.P..No. 284 of 2009()
1. M/S MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.M. FAISAL, S/O. MOIDUNNI,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.
For Petitioner :SRI.C.VALSALAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :22/05/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------
CRL.L.P.NO.284 OF 2009
------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009
O R D E R
This special leave petition is filed with a prayer to
grant permission to file an appeal against the judgment of the
JFCM-II, Trichur in ST.No.3517/2004. It is a case filed under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is the case
of the complainant that it is a non banking finance company
and the accused had purchased a Suzuki bike and he had
issued a cheque which when presented for encashment,
returned with the endorsement of insufficiency of funds. On
the contrary, the case of the accused is to the effect that he
had entered into a hire purchase agreement and at that
time, the complainant had obtained blank cheques from him
and he had misused those cheques for the purpose of filing
the case. The court below considered the evidence of PW1 and
DW1 and also Exts.P1 to P10 and D1. A material point that
was found by the court below is that the evidence is
clinching before the court to show that the complainant had
received two cheques bearing Nos.1223904 and 1223905. On
Crl.L.P.No.284/09 2
the basis of Cheque No.1223905, a complaint has been filed as
Ext.D1 as early as on 3.8.2002. The trial court found that
the present case is based on cheque No.1223904 and it is
filed after a period of three years and therefore, the court
observed that “it is difficult to believe that the complainant,
who is a commercial establishment, received a second cheque
from a customer against whom it was conducting case for
more than three years. It is also difficult to believe that the
accused kept the cheques with him for three years for
giving the same to the complainant”. The court also found
that in Ext.P2 cheque the name of the payee entered using a
rubber stamp and that signature is put in dark blue ink.
whereas the amount is entered in light blue ink. The court
also found that the pen and ink used for entering the
amount and date are different. So, on an analysis of these
materials, the court was prepared to accept the case of the
accused that it is the blank signed cheque that has been
made use of for filing a complaint under Section 138. It
cannot be characterised as a proper negotiable instrument at
all and therefore, I do not find any ground to find that the
Crl.L.P.No.284/09 3
court below has erred and so, no permission for leave to
appeal can be granted. Therefore, the Crl.L.P. is
dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
cl