IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 CRL.A.No. 1828 of 2010() ------------------------ ST.829/2007 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- K.P.SHINOD, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT KELOTH HOUSE, PANNIYANNUR AMSOM CHAMPAD DESOM, PO, CHEMPAD, PANOOR, THALASSERY REP BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.K.PRAKASAN, S/O.NANU,. AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT KORANKANDIYIL HOUSE, CHAMPAD, PANOOR,THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. V.P.KUNHIRAMAN, S/O.CHANDAMMAN, RESIDING AT VALIYAPRAMABATH HOUSE, KAYAKKODI AMSOM AND DESOM, KAYAKKODI PO, MOKEN (VIA) VATAKARA TALUK. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Crl.Appeal No.1828 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 14th September, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal arises from an order of acquittal passed under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The appellant is the complainant. He filed a complaint against first respondent herein, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As per the allegations in the complaint, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant on 12.5.2007. He also issued Ext.P2 cheque for discharge of the said liability, but the cheque was dis-honoured, on presentation before the Bank. Hence, a notice was issued as Ext.P5, demanding payment. The money was not paid and hence, the complaint. 3. The complainant adduced evidence. The court below, analysed the evidence in detail and held that the complainant failed to prove execution of Ext.P1 by the accused and its issuance in favour of the complainant. The accused had a definite case that there was no transaction between complainant and the accused, since he was not acquainted with him. PW1 was Crl.A. NO.1828/10 2 examined to prove the execution, but the court found that PW1 admitted in cross-examination that he did not know the accused. As per his own version, he had seen the accused only twice, but he was ready to pay the huge amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the accused, that too, without being supported by any document. According to trial court, the conduct of the complainant in not insisting to get any document before payment of Rs.2 lakhs, which is a huge amount itself is doubtful. The amount was paid on 12.5.2007 and till 23.7.2007, for a period of two months, the complainant did not choose to obtain any document to establish the payment of a huge amount of Rs.2 lakhs, that too, from a person who was seen by complainant only two days. 4. On going through the impugned order, I am satisfied that there is nothing wrong with the finding that the execution of Ext.P1 is not proved. Learned counsel for the appellant was not able to substantiate why such findings are not correct. In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. It is well settled that an order of acquittal can be set aside only if there are exceptional circumstances and if there is any perversity in the findings. Merely because a different Crl.A. NO.1828/10 3 view can be taken, the court cannot set aside an order of acquittal. In such circumstances, I find absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. This appeal cannot be admitted. This appeal is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs