IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.L.P..No. 856 of 2010()
1. RAJENDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VASANTHAKUMARI,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.ANILKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :03/09/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
----------------------------------------------
Crl. L.P. No.856 of 2010
----------------------------------------------
Dated 3rd September, 2010.
O R D E R
This petition is for special leave.
2. The petitioner was prosecuted for offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on a complaint
filed by respondent herein. On an analysis of the evidence on
record which consists of oral evidence of PW1, Exts.P1 to P5,
DW1, Exts.D1 to D4, it was found by the trial court that the
prosecution could not prove execution of cheque for discharge of
a debt of Rs.75,000/-, as claimed. The case of accused was that
Ext.P1 cheque was issued only by obtaining signature of the
accused in the blank form in a transaction of Rs.20,000/- in
between the complainant and husband of the accused. The court,
after analysing the evidence, entered a finding that the
probability of misusing Ext.P1 by obtaining the same in blank
form cannot be ruled out.
3. Learned defence counsel submitted that execution
of the cheque was admitted in the reply notice. (A copy of reply
notice was also handed over to this court). Hence, the finding
that execution is not proved cannot be sustained, it is submitted.
Crl.L.P. No.856/10 2
On going through the reply notice, it is clear that the execution
was not only admitted, but the whole transaction was disputed
also. It is stated in the said notice as follows :-
“it is known to your client that there is no money transaction
between my client and your client as alleged in your notice
and as such there is no question of discharge of liability
arising out of the cheque, ……..
That the husband of my client borrowed an amount of
Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand rupees) from your client and at
the time of the said transaction your client insisted my
client’s husband to give a signed blank cheque of my client
as a security for repayment.
That my client’s husband at that time itself showed his
inability to issue such a blank signed cheque of my client in
favour of your client since my client was not holding a cheque
book due to the poor balance in her account.”
4. According to learned defence counsel, as per the
reply notice, accused insisted for returning the cheque, and the
execution was admitted by him. On a reading of the extract from
the reply notice referred above, it is clear that the execution of
the cheque and the transaction between accused and
complainant were flatly denied by accused. In such
circumstances, as rightly held by the trial court, mere signing of
Crl.L.P. No.856/10 3
an instrument cannot be equated with execution of the same.
The petitioner was not able to substantiate that the findings of
the trial court on execution are unsustainable. In such
circumstances, I do not find any reason to allow this Special
Leave Petition.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
tgs