High Court Kerala High Court

Somasundara Panicker vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 15 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
Somasundara Panicker vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 15 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.L.P..No. 541 of 2009()


1. SOMASUNDARA PANICKER ,AGED 61
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. KOCHUMOL ALIAS MOLI SOJI

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.HARIDAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :15/07/2009

 O R D E R
                      M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                      ---------------------------
                   CRL.L.P.NO.541 OF 2009
                      ------------------------------
              Dated this the 15th day of July, 2009

                            O R D E R

This special leave petition is preferred against the order of

acquittal passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II

Chaganassery in S.T.No.317 /2007.

2. The complainant would contend that the accused had

borrowed a sum of Rs. Five lakhs and towards the discharge

of the same, had issued a cheque, which when presented for

encashment, returned with the endorsement of insufficiency of

funds.

3. On the contra, the accused would contend that he

had taken a loan of Rs. Three lakhs and had repaid Rs. Two

lakhs through one Mathew Joseph and Rs. One lakh directly

and the cheque which was obtained as a blank cheque at

the time of borrowal of the amount, has been used for filing

the complaint. The complainant when examined, totally and

categorically denied any acquaintance with Mathew Joseph

and further contended that he had not encahsed any

cheques. But on production as Exts.X1 and X2 when he was

2
CRL.L.P.NO.541/09

recalled and examined, he admitted his acquaintance with

Mathew Joseph and would have a new case that there was

money transaction between him and Mathew Joseph and it

was towards that transaction, he had obtained the cheques.

The court below very correctly found that the complainant

has no rigard for truth. So, analyzing the evidence, the

court found that preponderance of probability lies on the side

of the defence rather than the complainant and therefore

ordered acquittal of the accused. I do not find any mistake

committed by the learned Magistrate.

Therefore, the Crl.L.P is dismissed.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE

cl

3
CRL.L.P.NO.541/09

4
CRL.L.P.NO.541/09