IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl L P No. 542 of 2007()
1. M/S. RICH FIELD CHITTIES (P) LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AHAMMED KOYA K., S/O. MUHAMMED,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN
Dated :13/08/2007
O R D E R
K. Thankappan, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.L.P. No. 542 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th day of August,2007
O R D E R
This is a petition to special leave to appeal filed by the complainant
in S.T.No.644/06 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial First Class
Magistrate (Marad Cases), Kozhikode. In the complaint it is stated that
the petitioner was a Private Limited Company engaged in chitty business
and the 1st respondent in discharge of a liability of one Abdul Gafoor issued
Ext.P3 cheque for an amount of Rs.33,150/- in favour of the petitioner and
when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for
insufficiency of funds in the account of the 1st respondent. After complying
the statutory formalities, the complaint has been filed alleging that the 1st
respondent had committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. To prove the case against the 1st respondent,
PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. After closing the
prosecution evidence, the 1st respondent was questioned under section 313
Cr.P.C.. He denied the allegations and stated that he was the subscriber of
the chitty conducted by the petitioner and when he received the chitty
amount two signed blank cheques were given to the petitioner and even
Crl.542/07 2
after repayment of the entire amount of the chitty, demanding an exorbitant
amount as interest, a false case was foisted against him mis-utilizing the
blank cheque. After considering the entire evidence adduced by the
petitioner and the 1st respondent, the trial court found that the petitioner
company miserably failed to prove that impugned cheque was supported by
consideration. At the same time, the trial court found that the case set up by
the 1st respondent that blank cheque which handed over to the petitioner at
the time of receiving the chitty amount was mis-utilized by the petitioner to
stake a false complaint was more probable. After considering the entire
evidence, this Court finds that the findings entered by the trial court are on
evidence and the petitioner miserably failed to prove that the cheque in
question was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.
2. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court. Hence, leave to
appeal is rejected.
K. Thankappan,
Judge.
mn.
Crl.542/07 3