IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 116 of 2011()
1. P.S.HARISH KUMAR,58 YEARS,S/O.SHEENA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.LATHAKUMARI, AGED 45 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON
For Respondent :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :28/01/2011
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Criminal Appeal No.116 of 2011
-----------------------------------------------
Dated 28th January, 2011.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed against an order of acquittal.
2. The appellant is the complainant. He filed a
complaint before the Magistrate Court, alleging offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against first
respondent herein. According to appellant, the accused issued
a cheque drawn on an account maintained by him with the
Bank at Mangalore for Rs.62,000/- for discharge of a debt in
favour of appellant. The cheque, on presentation was returned
unpaid on the ground “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, a lawyer
notice was issued demanding payment, but no payment was
made. Hence, the complaint was filed.
3. To prove the prosecution case, PW1 was
examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. The accused denied
all the allegations and contended that she had no transaction
with the complainant. She is a total stranger to the
complainant. Ext.P1 is not supported by consideration. She
had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from one Shetty and 3
signed blank cheques were handed over to him. Out of those
Crl.Appeal No.116/11 2
cheques, one was misused by the complainant to file a false
complaint against her.
4. The trial court convicted the accused, but the
appellate court acquitted him on the ground that the trial court
had no jurisdiction to enter a finding of guilt against accused. It
was held by the appellate court in paragraph 12 as follows :
“12. Here, it is pertinent to note that the complainant has
not adduced any evidence to show that he was residing at
his address given in the complaint and that he was
conducting any business at Kasaragod. From the oral
testimony of PW1 itself, it is brought out that the alleged
transaction, ie., issue of cheque, presentation of the cheque
for collection, dishonour etc. are all done at Mangalore.
Further, it is brought out that the complainant has his
permanent residence at Mangalore and he was doing
business there.”
5. I have gone through the evidence of PW1 and I
am satisfied of the findings entered into by the trial court,
which are extracted above. It is clear that the appellant is a
permanent resident of Mangalore. All other transactions, such
as issuance of cheque, presentation, dishonour etc. are all at
Crl.Appeal No.116/11 3
Mangalore. The accused is also a resident of Mangalore, but
complaint is filed at Kasaragode, the motive of which must be
known to the appellant himself. The trial court has also relied
upon two decisions in paragraph 13 and found that the trial
court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. I do not
find any reason to interfere with those findings.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the
address of the complainant in the complaint is that of
Kasaragod. He has stated that he is residing in Kasaragode etc.
But, from the evidence, it is quite clear that ration card and
voters list etc. all referred to his residential address and the
business address at Mangalore. I do not find any ground to
admit this appeal.
This appeal is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
tgs