IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl L P No. 135 of 2007()
1. T.J. THOMAS, S/O.THARAYIL OUSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.D. ANTONY, S/O. PORATHUR DEVASSY,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN
Dated :02/03/2007
O R D E R
K. Thankappan, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.L.P. No. 135 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2007
O R D E R
This is a petition to special leave to appeal filed by the complainant
in S.T.No.391/2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I,
Thrissur. In the complaint it is stated that the 1st respondent borrowed an
amount of Rs.70,000/- from the petitioner and in discharge of the above
debt, he issued Ext.P1 cheque to the petitioner and when the cheque was
presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. To
prove the case against the 1st respondent, the complainant himself was
examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of the
defence, Exts.D1 to D3 were marked. When the 1st respondent was
questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the transaction. He stated
that he borrowed an amount of Rs.12,000/- in the year 2000, issued a blank
cheque and blank signed papers to secure the amount and the said cheque
was misused by filling up with exorbitant amount. After considering the
entire evidence the trial court found that “PW1 is discredited and he is
not believed and his evidence cannot be acted upon to find that a duly
executed cheque was issued in 2003”. The case of the petitioner is that he
lent money only in the year 2003. It is seen that in cross-examination PW1
CRL.LP 135/2007 2
admitted that the 1st respondent borrowed Rs.12,000/- in 2000 and it was
repaid by him at that time. The trial court found that the evidence makes
probable the defence case that the 1st respondent borrowed the amount in
2000 and the dispute arose thereon. Therefore, the trial court held that the
prosecution has filed to prove that the 1st respondent issued any cheque
towards legally enforceable debt.
2. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, 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.
K.Thankappan,J.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Crl.l.P.No. 701 /2006
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
ORDER
20-12-2006