IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 CRL.A.No. 655 of 2005() ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.105/2005 Dated 09/03/2005 CC.118/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/ COMPLAINANT: ----------------------- SUNIL NATH, PROPRIETOR,CHANCHAL CREATIVE COMMUNICATIONS,KOCHI. BY ADV. SMT.A.R.USHA RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED: --------------------- 1. K.G.HARIDAS, PARTNER M & H MEDIA, KOCHIERI KATTILE, SAINDHAVAM, U.C. COLLEGE, ALUVA. 2. MURALI KRISHNA, PARTNER M & H MEDIA,1/280, U.C.COLLEGE P.O.,ALUVA. 3. M/S. M & H MEDIA, 1/280, U.C. COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW FOR R1 TO 3 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ============== Criminal Appeal No. 655 of 2005 ==================== Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The complainant in C.C.No.118/2003 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam is the appellant herein. The complaint was filed alleging that the accused had issued Ext.P19 cheque for an amount of Rs.12,000/- on 15.11.1998 which was dishonoured on 3.2.1999 as evidenced by Ext.P29 dishonour memo. Dishonour was communicated to the complainant on 6.2.1999. Cheque amount was demanded as Ext.P30 telegram dated 12.2.1999. The accused had fifteen days time to pay the amount. But the complaint, pursuant to Ext.P19 cheque, seems to have been filed on 26.2.1999. Essentially, on this basis, the accused has been acquitted on the ground that the complaint was a premature one. 2. It may be noted that the stand taken by the accused was one of the denial of any transaction as alleged by the complainant. According to the accused, the cheque issued was a blank one and that was issued as a security and not for Criminal Appeal No. 655 of 2005 2 discharging any liability. Thus, the court below acquitted the accused under Section 255(i) Cr.P.C., finding that the complaint was premature. Hence the appeal. 3. There is no representation on behalf of the complainant or on behalf of the accused. I have perused the order of the court below. I am in agreement with the court below that the complaint should have been filed on or after 27.2.1999, with giving the accused, full fifteen days to pay the amount. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was nothing to show that an offence was committed in terms of 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the result, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. V.GIRI, JUDGE bkn/-